The Court of Appeals relied on the old standard of probable cause to infringe on an individual’s privacy. The other standard applied by the court is the prohibition of conviction on speculative charges. Realistic and not technical legal concepts should be used in convicting individuals, based on rational evidences. The apparent cause only relays the chances that an individual is involved in an act of felony (Lane, 2003. It is thus not accurate, but is a consequence of all factors surrounding the history of the crime and the arrest. Probable cause in itself is not an evidence to incriminate a person.
A person’s proximity to others who are in the act of committing a felony does not make him/her a criminal or give an officer a probable cause to arrest without a warrant. The Court of Appeal gave its final opinion that the 4th or 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was not contravened by the arrest and reversed the decision of the trial and Special Appeals Court of Maryland (Green, 2008). The case was remanded for further proceedings in line with the conclusions made by the Court of Appeals. The trial court had a dissenting opinion on how the Court of Appeal distanced the money discovered in the car from the cocaine seized, Brinegar v.
United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-176 (1949), and Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 230-231 (1983). The Maryland versus Pringle case brings out the importance of probable cause of arrest to American citizens. Interference with one’s privacy by law enforcement officers is restricted by the concept of probable cause. Individuals and their property such as cars, houses, and business premises should not be arbitrarily seized or searched by law officers (The Supreme Court, 2008). This privacy and security is only breached when the officer has reasonable evidence or is convinced that a crime is being committed by the suspect.
There must be concrete facts that the officer uses to support any seizure or searches conducted by him/her. Law enforcement officer must therefore have concrete reasons to infringe on one’s privacy in order to carry out searches without warrants (Lane, 2003). Cases Cited Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949), from www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/… /USSC_CR_0338_0160_ZO. html Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 231 (1983), from caselaw. lp. findlaw. com/cgi-bin/getcase. pl? court=us… 462… 213 Johnson v. United States and Wong Sun v. United States, from law. jrank. org/pages/13008/Wong-Sun-v-United-States.
html Ornelas v. United States, 517 U. S. 690, 695 (1996), from www. pamd. uscourts. gov/opinions/Conner/04r0301. pdf United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1989), from www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/95-5257. ZO. html Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85, 91, from http://supreme. nolo. com/us/332/581/case. html Conclusion Law enforcement officers should have a probable cause to suspect a felony is being committed by an individual or a group of people. Effecting searches and arrests without proper reason to believe a crime is being committed amounts to an infringement of the 4th and 14th Amendments.
These Amendments protect the rights of citizens against interference on their private life and property by law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers must also narrow down the arrests by use of clear evidence and historical facts on the crime or the arrest made. Arbitrary arrests without probable cause cannot serve as evidence to convict a suspect in a court of law. References Drug War Chronicle, (2003). Supreme Court okays arrest of all occupants in cars where unclaimed drugs are found. Retrieved on 13th July, 2010 from http://stopthedrugwar. org/chronicle-old/316/pringle. shtml
Green, R. (2008). Maryland versus Pringle, Joseph. Retrieved 13 July, 2010 from http://otd. oyez. org/cases/2003/maryland-v-pringle-joesph-12152003 Lane, C. (2003). Justices’ ruling sets broad ‘probable cause’ standard in drug arrests. Washington Post. Retrieved 13 July, 2010 from http://www. washingtonpost. com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article&contentId=A2980-2003Dec15¬Found=true The Supreme Court, (2008). Supreme Court will review police arrest powers during traffic stops. USA Today. Retrieved 13 July, 2010 from http://www. usatoday. com/news/washington/2003-03-25-scotus-traffic_x. htm