## Q4 key (SUV, Backpack, Phone)
1. The stop survives even if the stop-sign basis fails on the video, because the partial-plate match near the robbery supplies independent reasonable suspicion; analysis that ends the case at the stop is wrong. Missed: entire suppression map miscalculated.
2. The minute-9 extension is lawful only on the robbery suspicion; if credited, the dog sniff at minute 15 stands; the alert then gives probable cause for the vehicle. Missed: the fruit-chain branches from the wrong node.
3. The backpack is the passenger's: her exclusive objection and known ownership defeat driver consent and apparent authority; the gun is suppressible by her, and the driver lacks standing to challenge that search. Missed: wrong defendant briefs the wrong motion.
4. The warrantless thumb-press unlock and message review is an unlawful search under supplied rule 7 regardless of the fingerprint's non-testimonial status. Missed: the state's strongest exhibit survives unchallenged.
5. Independent source fails: the warrant decision was prompted by the unlawful phone view and the affidavit concealed it; excising the messages, the remaining showing is thin and the taint doctrine controls. Missed: derivative phone evidence wrongly preserved.
6. The six-month photo trawl exceeds the 48-hour warrant scope; the unrelated drug images are suppressed. Missed: a separate prosecution is wrongly conceded.
7. Statements: the pre-warning "I just drove" is out; the two-step sequence without curative measures taints the post-warning statements; "Do I need a lawyer?" is ambiguous, but "I think maybe I should talk to someone" followed by "everyone will blame you" makes the final confession involuntary or unknowing. Missed: the confession, the case's spine, is wrongly treated as admissible.
8. Net posture: against the driver, the under-seat medication likely survives while phone evidence and statements fall, collapsing the strong counts toward possession; against the passenger, the gun falls. Plea leverage flows accordingly. Missed: both sides negotiate against the wrong evidence set.