Signal 40 Feet Early: The Stop, the Revolver, and the Question in the Patrol Car
At 11:40 p.m., Officer Dunn watches a sedan change lanes on a four-lane state highway without signaling. State law requires a turn signal "continuously for at least the last 100 feet" before a lane change; Dunn estimates the car signaled for about 40 feet before crossing the line. Dunn stops the car. The driver, Vance, has a 2019 robbery conviction and tells Dunn so when asked. As Dunn approaches, he smells burnt marijuana and sees loose green plant material in the center console. Dunn orders Vance and the passenger out, pats them down, then searches the passenger compartment and finds a loaded revolver under the passenger seat. Dunn handcuffs Vance, places him in the back of the patrol car, and asks, "Whose gun is that?" without Miranda warnings. Vance says, "It's mine - I keep it for protection."
1. Was the traffic stop lawful, and does Dunn's possible motive matter?
Read the worked answer
The stop was lawful.
- A traffic stop is a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion, and a traffic violation - however minor, and even one the officer would ordinarily ignore - supplies probable cause to stop. Whren v. United States forecloses inquiry into the officer's subjective motive: if the observed conduct violated the statute, the stop is valid regardless of whether Dunn was really looking for drugs.
- The 100-foot rule: Dunn observed a car signal for roughly 40 feet before crossing the lane line. That is an observed violation, not a hunch, and it is not a mistake-of-law problem under Heien v. North Carolina.
- The stop's scope stays lawful so long as the officer's inquiries are reasonably related to the stop, and the odor of marijuana plus visible contraband independently supplied probable cause to extend it.
Judgment flag: if this jurisdiction has legalized or decriminalized marijuana, verify whether the odor of burnt marijuana alone still supplies probable cause. Here it does not matter, because Dunn also saw loose plant material and, independently, had reasonable suspicion supporting a protective search.
2. Is the revolver admissible? Identify every independent ground.
Read the worked answer
Yes - admissible on at least two independent grounds, either of which is sufficient.
1. Protective search of the passenger compartment (Michigan v. Long). Officers who have reasonable suspicion that a suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon may search the passenger compartment for weapons. Factors present: a late-night stop on a highway; two occupants; admitted recent robbery conviction; the odor of burnt marijuana plus visible plant material; the two men were removed but would return to the car absent arrest. That is a particularized, articulable basis - not a generalized frisk.
2. Automobile exception (Carroll; California v. Acevedo). Probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is in the vehicle permits a warrantless search of the areas and containers where the object of the search might be found. The burnt odor plus visible marijuana supports probable cause. The revolver was found in a place where it could be concealed.
Judgment checks before advising:
- Was the pat-down itself justified? Yes, if Dunn reasonably believed the men were armed and dangerous; nothing in the frisk produced the gun, so any overreach there does not taint the later search.
- Confirm the car was still within the officer's control and Vance had not been secured far away and unable to reach the compartment - if he had been, the Long rationale weakens, but the automobile exception still stands on probable cause.
- If the state's marijuana law has changed, verify whether odor alone still supports probable cause; here the visible plant material is an independent fact.
3. Should Vance's statement be suppressed, and what happens to the gun if it is?
Read the worked answer
Suppress the statement; the gun stays in.
Custody. Handcuffed in the back of a patrol car at 11:40 p.m. is custody by any measure. Miranda warnings were not given.
Interrogation. Rhode Island v. Innis defines interrogation as express questioning or words reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. "Whose gun is that?" is express questioning directed at a suspect about the very contraband just seized. It is not a booking question or a neutral administrative inquiry. Vance's admission that he owned the revolver is testimonial and directly incriminating on a felon-in-possession charge.
Public safety exception (New York v. Quarles) does not save it. The exception applies to questions needed to locate a weapon that poses an immediate threat. Dunn had already found and secured the loaded revolver; no other weapon was suspected; both occupants were handcuffed. There was no exigency to justify skipping warnings.
The gun is unaffected. It was discovered before the question was asked, so it is not the fruit of the unwarned statement. Even if a court somehow traced the gun to the interrogation, it was found by a lawful Long/automobile search, so the independent-source and inevitable-discovery doctrines would apply.
Advice to the attorney: file a motion to suppress the statement only. A motion seeking to suppress the revolver on this record is likely to lose and may cost credibility with the court.