Backpack Search and the Patrol-Car Question
At 11 p.m., Officer Ruiz stops a car with a broken taillight. The driver, Dana, is shaking and says the car belongs to her boyfriend. Ruiz notices a closed backpack on the back seat and smells burnt marijuana. He asks Dana to step out and whether there is anything illegal in the car; she says, 'No, go ahead and look.' Ruiz opens the backpack and finds a handgun and a baggie of cocaine. He handcuffs Dana, places her in the patrol car, and without warnings asks, 'Whose gun is that?' She says, 'It's mine; I bought it for protection.' The state charges Dana with unlawful firearm possession and drug possession.
1. Was the warrantless search of the backpack lawful? Address probable cause, consent, and the automobile exception.
Read the worked answer
Likely yes. The odor of burnt marijuana, combined with Dana's shaking and the late-night stop, can supply probable cause that contraband is in the car. Under the automobile exception, police with probable cause may search the vehicle and containers within it that may contain the object of the search. The backpack is a container in the passenger compartment. Dana's consent was also broad-'go ahead and look' in response to a question about anything illegal in the car-and a reasonable officer could treat it as covering the backpack. Either theory supports admission of the gun and cocaine. If the odor alone were deemed insufficient, the consent issue would carry the search; the scope question is the closest call.
2. Was Dana's statement about the gun admissible? Apply Miranda.
Read the worked answer
No, the statement should be suppressed. Miranda custody exists when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave; handcuffing Dana and placing her in a patrol car is custody. 'Whose gun is that?' is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, so it is interrogation. No warnings were given. The public-safety exception is narrow and applies when officers ask about weapons that may endanger them or the public-here the gun was already secured and the question was investigative. The physical evidence remains admissible if the search was lawful; only the testimonial statement is suppressed.
3. If the search were unlawful, would the gun still be admissible under inevitable discovery or attenuation?
Read the worked answer
On these facts, probably not. Inevitable discovery requires proof that the evidence would have been found by lawful means with reasonable certainty; the state cannot rely on speculation that a later inventory search or arrest would have occurred. Attenuation requires a break in the causal chain, but Dana's statement came immediately after the illegal search and was prompted by it. The cocaine and gun would be fruit of the poisonous tree. If the search was lawful, this issue never arises. The state bears the burden on both exceptions.