The Backpack Gun After a License Arrest
At 11:10 p.m., Officer Lane saw a Honda Civic with a broken taillight. She stopped it. The driver, Davis, had no license and could not produce registration. Lane arrested Davis for driving without a license, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of her cruiser. Another officer arrived. Lane then searched the passenger compartment and found a closed backpack on the back seat. Inside was a loaded handgun. Davis is a convicted felon. Before the search, Lane asked Davis, 'Is there anything in the car I should know about?' Davis said, 'Just the gun in the backpack.' Lane had not given Miranda warnings. The state charges Davis with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Davis moves to suppress the gun and his statement. The state concedes the stop was lawful and the arrest was supported by probable cause. It argues that the search was valid incident to arrest and that the statement was admissible because Lane asked for officer safety.
1. Was the search of the backpack valid as a search incident to arrest under the Fourth Amendment?
Read the worked answer
No. A vehicle search incident to arrest is permitted under Arizona v. Gant only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, or when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Davis was handcuffed and secured in the back of a cruiser. The offense was driving without a license, and there is no reason to believe evidence of that offense would be in a closed backpack. The backpack was not within Davis's reach. The state cannot rely on a general desire to find weapons; Gant rejected that broad rationale. Nor does the automobile exception apply, because the state has not shown probable cause to search the car for contraband. An inventory search might be valid if conducted under standard procedures, but the state has not invoked that theory. Because the search exceeded Gant, the gun must be suppressed.
2. Is Davis's statement admissible under Miranda?
Read the worked answer
No. Davis was in custody: he had been arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a police cruiser. Officer Lane's question, 'Is there anything in the car I should know about?' was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, especially after an arrest. It was therefore interrogation, and no warnings were given. The public-safety exception from New York v. Quarles is narrow. It applies when officers face an immediate danger and ask a question necessary to secure a weapon or protect themselves or the public. Here Davis was secured, another officer was present, and the backpack was closed on the back seat. Lane did not ask a narrowly tailored question about an accessible weapon; she asked a broad question inviting disclosure of evidence. On these facts, the statement should be suppressed.
3. Would the result change if Davis had been arrested for a shooting 20 minutes earlier and Lane reasonably believed the gun was in the car?
Read the worked answer
The search analysis would change, but the Miranda analysis might not. Under Gant, a vehicle search incident to arrest is permitted when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. If Davis was arrested for a recent shooting and Lane reasonably believed the gun used in that shooting was in the car, Gant would permit a search of the passenger compartment, including containers that could hold the weapon. The backpack on the back seat would likely be within that scope. The automobile exception might also apply if Lane had probable cause to believe the car contained the gun. The Miranda issue is separate: the public-safety exception could justify an unwarned question if the gun posed an immediate danger, but once Davis was handcuffed and secured, the danger is reduced. A narrowly tailored question such as 'Where is the gun?' might qualify; a broad question seeking all evidence is less likely to qualify.