Consent, the Glovebox, and the Handcuffed Statement
At 11:42 p.m., Officer Reyes stops a sedan for an expired registration sticker. The driver, Daniel, produces a license but his hands shake. Reyes notices three pine-tree air fresheners and a strong odor of marijuana. Reyes asks Daniel to step out. Daniel says, 'Go ahead, I have nothing to hide.' Reyes asks, 'Anything illegal in the car?' Daniel shrugs. Reyes searches the passenger compartment and finds a loaded revolver in the glovebox. Daniel is a convicted felon. After Reyes handcuffs Daniel and places him in the back of the cruiser, Reyes asks, 'Is the gun yours?' Daniel says, 'I didn't know it was there.' Daniel is charged with felon in possession. He moves to suppress the gun and the statement. The state concedes the stop was lawful but argues consent and public safety. Daniel's prior felony is not disputed.
1. Was Daniel's consent voluntary and broad enough to justify the glovebox search? Explain.
Read the worked answer
Consent and scope
Voluntariness is judged by the totality of the circumstances: age, education, intelligence, length of detention, number of officers, show of force, and whether warnings were given. Daniel said 'go ahead, I have nothing to hide,' but that phrase is ambiguous. It could be read as consent to a general search, or as a shrug-like resignation. A reasonable officer might treat it as consent to the passenger compartment, but the scope of consent depends on what a reasonable person would understand. Under Florida v. Jimeno, consent extends to closed containers when it is objectively reasonable to believe the consent covered them. A glovebox is a common place for registration and insurance, so a court could find the scope included it.
Even if consent is doubtful, the search is likely valid under the automobile exception. The strong odor of marijuana, combined with the air fresheners and Daniel's nervousness, supplies probable cause to believe contraband is in the car. Under California v. Acevedo, officers may search containers in the car that may contain the object of the search. The gun is therefore admissible on that alternative ground. The state does not need consent if probable cause independently supports the search.
2. Should Daniel's post-handcuff statement be suppressed? Address custody, interrogation, and any exception.
Read the worked answer
Custodial statement
Miranda applies to custodial interrogation. Daniel was handcuffed and placed in the back of a cruiser; a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. The question 'Is the gun yours?' was designed to elicit an incriminating response, so it was interrogation. The public-safety exception in New York v. Quarles permits questions necessary to locate a weapon and protect officers or the public, but the gun had already been found and secured. Asking ownership after the weapon is secured is not prompted by an immediate threat. The booking exception does not apply because ownership of a weapon is not routine biographical information. Therefore, the statement should be suppressed unless the state proves another exception. The gun itself is physical evidence and not testimonial, so it is not suppressed by the Miranda violation.