540 U.S. 366 (2003)
In the early morning hours of August 7, 1999, a Baltimore County Police officer stopped a Nissan Maxima for speeding at 3:16 a.m.1 The vehicle had three occupants: Donte Partlow, the driver and owner of the car; respondent Pringle, the front-seat passenger; and Otis Smith, the back-seat passenger.2
When Partlow opened the glove compartment to retrieve the vehicle registration, the officer observed a large amount of rolled-up money inside.3 After the officer checked the computer system and issued an oral warning to Partlow, a second patrol car arrived. Partlow consented to a search of the vehicle, which yielded $763 from the glove compartment and five plastic glassine baggies containing cocaine from behind the back-seat armrest.4
The officer questioned all three men about the ownership of the drugs and money and informed them that if no one admitted ownership he would arrest them all. None of the men offered any information, so the officer placed all three under arrest and transported them to the police station.5
Later that morning, Pringle waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona and provided an oral and written confession acknowledging that the cocaine belonged to him, that he and his friends were going to a party, and that he intended to sell the cocaine or use it for sex.6 Pringle stated that the other occupants did not know about the drugs, resulting in their release.7 A jury convicted Pringle of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine.8
The trial court denied Pringle’s motion to suppress his confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest. A jury convicted Pringle, and he received a sentence of 10 years’ incarceration without the possibility of parole.9 The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed.10 The Court of Appeals of Maryland, by divided vote, reversed.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.12
Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle for possession of cocaine?13
The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for a warrantless arrest.14 The probable-cause standard is a practical, nontechnical conception that deals with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.15 Probable cause is a fluid concept turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts not readily reduced to a neat set of legal rules.16 The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.17 It exists when the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.18
Yes. The officer had probable cause to believe a felony had been committed upon recovering the five plastic glassine baggies containing suspected cocaine.19 Pringle was one of three men riding in the Nissan Maxima at 3:16 a.m.20 There was $763 of rolled-up cash in the glove compartment directly in front of him.21 Five plastic glassine baggies of cocaine were behind the back-seat armrest and accessible to all three men.22 Upon questioning, the three men failed to offer any information with respect to the ownership of the cocaine or the money.23
It is an entirely reasonable inference from these facts that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine.24