Traffic Stop, Gun Statement, and a Suggestive Lineup
At 11:40 p.m., Officer Reyes stops Damon's car because the license-plate light is out. Damon's hands shake as he hands over his license, and Reyes sees an open beer can in the cupholder. Reyes orders Damon out, sees a knife clip on Damon's pocket, pats him down, and finds a pocketknife. Damon says, 'There's a gun in the glovebox.' Reyes handcuffs Damon, reads Miranda warnings from a card, and asks, 'Why do you have a gun?' Damon answers, 'For protection -- I'm a convicted felon.' Reyes then opens the glovebox without a warrant and finds a loaded handgun. At the station, Damon is placed in a six-person lineup. He is the only person wearing an orange jail uniform; the others wear civilian clothes. The victim identifies Damon. Damon moves to suppress the gun, his statement, and the identification.
1. Was the stop, frisk, and glovebox search lawful? Analyze each step.
Read the worked answer
The stop is lawful because the burned-out license-plate light gave Reyes probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. Ordering Damon out of the car is also permissible for officer safety during a lawful traffic stop. The frisk is supported by reasonable suspicion that Damon might be armed and dangerous: it was late at night, he was nervous, an open container was in plain view, and Reyes saw a knife clip before the pat-down. The pocketknife was therefore lawfully found. The glovebox search is the closer issue, but it is likely valid under the automobile exception. Damon's statement that there was a gun in the glovebox gave Reyes probable cause to believe contraband or evidence was in the car, and the automobile exception permits a warrantless search of the vehicle, including containers such as a glovebox, when probable cause exists. The handgun should therefore not be suppressed on Fourth Amendment grounds.
2. Should Damon's statements be suppressed under Miranda?
Read the worked answer
The statement 'There's a gun in the glovebox' was volunteered before any police questioning and before Miranda warnings, so it is not the product of custodial interrogation and should not be suppressed on Miranda grounds. The later question -- 'Why do you have a gun?' -- occurred after Damon was handcuffed, which is custody, and the question was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, so it was interrogation. But Reyes had already read the warnings from a card. The prosecution must show that Damon knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights; if the record shows he understood and chose to answer, the post-warning statement 'For protection -- I'm a convicted felon' is admissible. If the warnings were hurried or the waiver was not voluntary, that statement could be suppressed. Miranda, however, would not automatically require suppression of the gun as physical evidence.
3. Is the lineup identification admissible despite the suggestive procedure?
Read the worked answer
The lineup was unnecessarily suggestive because Damon was the only participant wearing an orange jail uniform, which strongly signals that he is the suspect in custody. That does not automatically require exclusion. The court must ask whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the suggestive procedure created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Relevant factors include the witness's opportunity to view the offender during the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of any prior description, the level of certainty at the identification, the time between the crime and the lineup, and any other evidence of reliability. If the victim had a good opportunity to observe and gave a consistent description, the identification may still be admitted with caution. If the identification was based mainly on the jail uniform, the court should suppress it as unreliable.