The Backpack, the Invocation, and the Photo Array
Your firm represents Marcus Hale, charged with burglary of a convenience store. Police responded to a silent alarm at 2:14 a.m. and found Hale two blocks away carrying a backpack. Without a warrant, an officer opened the backpack and found $1,850 in cash and a pry bar. Hale was arrested and taken to the station. He was given Miranda warnings at 2:55 a.m., invoked his right to counsel at 3:05 a.m., and interrogation stopped. At 8:30 a.m., a different detective, unaware of the invocation, re-advised Hale and questioned him for 40 minutes; Hale then said, "I was there, but I didn't take anything." At 11:00 a.m., the same detective conducted a photo array with the store clerk; the clerk had already seen Hale's booking photo on the news. The array contained Hale's photo twice, once with a different background. The store's exterior camera shows a person of Hale's height and build, but the face is obscured. The prosecution has disclosed the backpack evidence, the statement, and the identification.
1. Analyze the lawfulness of the warrantless search of Hale's backpack. Identify the legal basis the prosecution will likely assert and the weaknesses in that basis.
Read the worked answer
The prosecution will likely rely on search incident to arrest. Under Chimel v. California, an officer may search the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control to prevent destruction of evidence and protect officer safety. If Hale was lawfully arrested and the backpack was on his person or within his immediate control, the search may be valid. Arizona v. Gant limits vehicle searches incident to arrest, but it does not eliminate the traditional search of the person and personal effects.
The weakness is the predicate arrest. A silent alarm plus proximity two blocks away may or may not amount to probable cause, especially without a description matching Hale. If the arrest was not lawful, the search cannot be justified as incident to arrest. The prosecution might also argue exigency, but cash and a pry bar are not inherently destructible, and there is no indication Hale was reaching for the backpack. An inventory search would require established procedures and custody. I would move to suppress the cash and pry bar and develop the timeline of when Hale was actually arrested versus when the backpack was opened.
2. Hale invoked his right to counsel at 3:05 a.m. Evaluate the admissibility of his 8:30 a.m. statement to the different detective.
Read the worked answer
Under Edwards v. Arizona, once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, interrogation must cease until counsel is present or the suspect himself initiates further communication. The invocation is not offense-specific, and the police cannot simply wait and try again. The fact that a different detective was unaware of the invocation does not cure the problem; the knowledge of one officer is imputed to the team. The 5.5-hour gap does not reset the invocation.
Therefore, the 8:30 a.m. statement is inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief. It might be usable for impeachment if Hale testifies inconsistently, under Harris v. New York, but that is a limited exception and does not make it substantive evidence. The statement is also ambiguous and does not clearly admit taking anything. I would file a motion to suppress the statement and any derivative evidence, and I would preserve the station logs and interview recordings to show the timing of the invocation.
3. Evaluate the photo array and the clerk's identification. What constitutional challenge can be made, and what facts matter?
Read the worked answer
The challenge would be based on due process: an identification procedure that is impermissibly suggestive and creates a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification violates due process. The array contained Hale's photo twice, once with a different background, which is suggestive. The clerk had also seen Hale's booking photo on the news before the array. Under Simmons v. United States, courts examine the totality of the circumstances, and under Neil v. Biggers they consider the witness's opportunity to view the offender, degree of attention, accuracy of the prior description, level of certainty, and time elapsed.
The fact that the clerk saw the booking photo on the news is not police conduct, but it can taint the identification. The duplicate photo is police conduct and is a strong basis for a motion to suppress. The store camera shows only height and build, not the face, which weakens independent reliability. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a photo array under United States v. Ash, so the challenge is due process, not counsel. I would obtain the array, the clerk's prior description, and the detective's instructions to assess whether the procedure was blind and whether the clerk was told Hale was a suspect.