Traffic Stop, Console Search, and Unwarned Station Statement

Conclusion: yes, suppress the marijuana. The initial stop was valid because the officer observed an expired registration. The patdown for weapons may be justified by officer safety, but the console search is the problem. At the time Ruiz opened the console, Mark was outside the truck after a patdown. Under Arizona v. Gant, a search incident to arrest of a vehicle is permitted only when the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment or when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. A suspended-license offense does not supply a reason to believe evidence is in the console, and Mark was not within reaching distance. The search also preceded the formal arrest for marijuana possession, so the marijuana cannot justify the search that found it. There was no probable cause to search the console before it was opened. The marijuana is the fruit of an invalid search and should be suppressed.

Conclusion: yes, suppress the gun. The department's inventory policy could authorize a search of locked containers, but only if the inventory is actually conducted under standardized criteria and the vehicle is being impounded. Here Ruiz had not decided to tow the truck, and the policy does not require an inventory unless the vehicle is towed. An inventory search cannot be used as a pretext to rummage for evidence when no impoundment decision has been made. The automobile exception also fails: by the time Ruiz searched the toolbox, he had only the marijuana from the console, and that evidence was itself unlawfully obtained. There was no independent probable cause that the truck contained a stolen gun. Inevitable discovery is not established because Ruiz had not decided to tow and no routine inventory was underway. The gun should be suppressed as derivative of the unlawful search.

Conclusion: yes, suppress the statement. Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation. Mark was at the station, had been arrested, and was questioned for 40 minutes without warnings. That is custody plus interrogation. His statement, 'I didn't know the gun was stolen-I bought it at a flea market,' was made in response to questioning, not spontaneously. The public-safety exception does not apply: the gun had already been found and secured, and there was no immediate threat. The absence of counsel is not itself the problem, because Mark had not requested counsel, but the absence of warnings is fatal. The statement must be suppressed. Because the gun was also suppressed, the statement cannot be used as evidence about the gun or as impeachment on a matter not voluntarily offered.