Automobile Search, Public Safety, and Invocation of Counsel
At 11 p.m., Officer Reyes watched a car with an expired registration pull into a gas station. As Reyes approached, she saw on the passenger seat a clear bag of white powder and the driver, Dana, with shaking hands. Reyes asked Dana to step out and said, 'Is there anything in the car I should know about?' Dana answered, 'There's a gun in the trunk, but it's not mine.' Reyes opened the trunk and found a stolen revolver and a locked briefcase. She opened the briefcase and found 20 grams of cocaine; a field test of the white powder was positive. Dana was arrested and given Miranda warnings. At the station, after 40 minutes of questioning, Dana said, 'I want a lawyer.' The detective replied, 'Fine, but if you tell me now, I can help you.' Dana then confessed. The car is registered to Dana's cousin. Dana moves to suppress the gun, the cocaine, and the confession.
1. Was the warrantless search of the trunk and briefcase lawful?
Read the worked answer
The automobile exception permits a warrantless search of a vehicle when officers have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence. The white powder, the positive field test, and Dana's statement about a gun in the trunk supplied probable cause. Under California v. Acevedo, officers may search containers in the vehicle that may contain the object of the search, including a locked briefcase. The scope must match the probable cause: the gun statement supported a search for a weapon in the trunk, and the drug evidence supported a search of the briefcase for drugs. The trunk and briefcase search was therefore lawful. It does not matter that the car belonged to Dana's cousin; the officer had probable cause tied to the vehicle. A search incident to arrest would not justify the trunk search after Dana was out of the car, but the automobile exception does.
2. Is Dana's pre-arrest statement about the gun admissible?
Read the worked answer
Dana's statement about the gun is admissible. A routine traffic stop is not custody for Miranda purposes, so no warnings were required before Officer Reyes asked the question. Even if Dana were in custody, the public-safety exception permits questions about a weapon that could endanger officers or the public. The question 'Is there anything in the car I should know about?' was not designed to elicit an incriminating testimonial statement about past crimes; it was a safety question, and Dana's answer was voluntary. The statement can also be used to establish probable cause for the trunk search, even if it were later suppressed for some reason.
3. Is the confession admissible after Dana invoked the right to counsel?
Read the worked answer
Dana's 'I want a lawyer' was an unambiguous request for counsel. Under Edwards v. Arizona, once a suspect in custody invokes the right to counsel, all interrogation must cease until counsel is provided or the suspect initiates further communication. The detective did not stop; the statement 'if you tell me now, I can help you' was designed to elicit a confession and was the functional opposite of honoring the invocation. Dana's subsequent confession is therefore inadmissible in the State's case-in-chief. A later waiver would not cure the Edwards violation unless counsel was present or Dana initiated the contact after a break in custody. The gun and cocaine are still admissible because they were found before the confession and are supported by independent probable cause; the confession does not taint them.