The Traffic Stop and the Locked Glovebox
Officer Reyes stops a car for a burned-out taillight at 11 p.m. The driver, Vance, produces a valid license but his hands shake and there is a closed beer can in the cupholder. Reyes orders Vance out, pats him down, and finds nothing. Reyes then opens the unlocked glovebox 'to check for registration' and finds a small bag of methamphetamine. Vance is arrested. At the station, detectives give Miranda warnings. Vance says, 'I want a lawyer.' The detectives stop questioning. Two hours later, a different detective, unaware of the request, approaches Vance and says, 'We just want your side.' Vance confesses. Before trial, Vance moves to suppress the meth and the confession.
1. Was the glovebox search lawful? Analyze under the Fourth Amendment.
Read the worked answer
Automobile exception / search incident to arrest. After Arizona v. Gant, a search incident to arrest of a vehicle is permitted only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, or when it is reasonable to believe evidence of the offense of arrest is in the vehicle. Vance was arrested for DUI/possession; evidence of drinking (open container) could reasonably be in the car, which supports a limited search - but the glovebox is not a likely repository for alcohol evidence in this scenario.
Registration rationale. Delaware v. Prouse-type registration checks do not authorize a full glovebox search absent consent or probable cause. However, officers may check the glovebox for registration during a lawful stop in many jurisdictions if it is a routine practice - but the better modern rule (Rodriguez v. United States) is that a stop may not be extended beyond its mission without reasonable suspicion. Opening a locked/unlocked compartment solely to find registration, when the driver already produced a valid license and no registration violation was suspected, likely exceeds the stop's mission.
Conclusion. The search is likely unlawful; the meth should be suppressed unless the State can show an independent exception (e.g., inventory search or consent).
2. Should the confession be suppressed? Address the Miranda invocation and the 'different detective' issue.
Read the worked answer
Invocation. 'I want a lawyer' is an unequivocal request for counsel under Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona. Once invoked, all interrogation must cease until counsel is provided or the suspect himself initiates further communication.
The 'unaware detective' problem. The invocation is not officer-specific. Under Edwards, the suspect may not be re-interrogated by any officer unless counsel is present or the suspect reinitiates. The second detective's ignorance of the invocation does not cure the violation - the agency is charged with knowledge. The confession is presumptively involuntary and must be suppressed.
Caveat. If Vance spontaneously volunteered the confession without any question, it would be admissible. Here the detective asked 'We just want your side' - that is interrogation. Suppress.
3. If the meth is suppressed, can the State still use Vance's confession?
Read the worked answer
This raises the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. If the confession was obtained by exploiting the illegal search, it is derivative evidence and also suppressed. However, under Oregon v. Elstad and Missouri v. Seibert, a confession given after proper Miranda warnings can purge the taint if there is a break in the causal chain (e.g., significant time, intervening circumstances, or the suspect's own voluntary decision).
Here, the confession came only two hours after arrest and after the illegal search. The State would need to show the confession was not caused by the search - e.g., that Vance decided to confess for independent reasons. The Miranda violation alone does not automatically taint the confession, but the Fourth Amendment violation does if the confession is a fruit. On these facts, suppression of both is the likely outcome; the State bears the burden of proving attenuation.