How could fingerprints from a stranger inside a vehicle that was broken into be enough evidence to arrest? 2nd?

I have had many debates about this. The answers have went both ways. Basically the scenario goes, there is a car that had it window smashed in. The owner came back and called the police. The police found prints inside that they later matched to a person that the victim does not know. There is no other evidence beside the prints. Now, many feel this is enough to make an arrest and charge the person with crime. Others, me included, feel that the simple fact that the vehicle is in a public lot and has been there open for who knows how many hours makes the fingerprints of less value. Since the window is smashed out the inside of car is now more essable to others. A perby could have noticed it and touched it on the inside, someone could have scavenged through it. However, unlikely the situation might be, it is still plausible. In the past I have closed and lock doors that were mistakenly been left open in a parking lot. So if that car was involved in a crime and my prints were found should I have been arrest without hearing my side. Or what if someone noticed the car had been broken into and the doors were left open and they took it upon themselves to secure the car? It happens. Should they be arrested? So my question is do you think the presence of prints inside of a vehicle would be enough to arrest and charge?