Elizabeth Garcia 9/20/18 Dr. Pons PLA 3108 Mgrylgn y, Pringlg, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Facts: On August 7, 1999, The Baltimore law enforcement stopped a vehicle for speeding. The vehicle contained three occupants. When the officer asked for license and registration, the driver opened the glove department. The officer noticed the large rolled up money in the compartment. After making sure the driver didn't have any outstanding violations the officer told the driver to step out of the vehicle and give an oral warning. Before, they were able to leave the officer asked if he can search the vehicle and asked if they had any weapons or drugs in the call. The driver of the vehicle gave his consent. Once the officers search the vehicle they found drugs and money that none of the occupants wanted to take ownership of. Finally, after being arrested and taken to the police station. Pringle waived his rights and plead guilty for the drugs and the money. The trial court denied Pringle's Motion to Suppress his confession and the jury convicted Pringle of the drugs. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the decision. The Court of Appeals reversed it saying it is not enough information to establish probable cause for arresting Pringle on a drug charge when he was a front-seat passenger. Issue: Whether the arrest of the front-seat passenger in the car driven by someone else lacks a probable cause and does it violate the Fourth Amendment when drugs were found in the vehicle? Rule: A the police officer can conclude a probable cause if he believes that a felony has been committed or is being committed in the officer's presence. Application: In this case, Pringle is arrested for possession of drugs and a large Sum of money found in the vehicle which leads to the police officer having a probable cause. Since drugs and money were found the police officer has reasonable cause to assume Pringle has committed a felony which lead to arrestng him and the fellow occupants of the vehicle no matter where they were seating. They still knew about the drugs and money so it is reasonable to allow the officer under the Fourth Amendment to arrest the occupants of the vehicle without a warrant since he had probable cause. Conclusion: The United States Supreme court reversed and remanded. Therefore, because the police officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle based on possession of drugs and money found in the vehicle which lead to it not being a violation of the Fourth Amendment