# Question 4: The SUV, the Backpack, and the Phone

## Your role

Prepare a suppression analysis that fairly presents both the defense and prosecution positions in a robbery prosecution.

## Governing law

1. A traffic stop is valid when the officer has objectively reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred. A reasonable mistake of fact may support a stop. An unsupported assertion contradicted by reliable video does not.

2. A stop may last only as long as reasonably necessary to address the traffic matter and ordinary safety-related tasks. Unrelated investigation may not measurably extend the stop without independent reasonable suspicion.

3. Nervousness, air fresheners, and presence in a high-crime area may contribute to reasonable suspicion but ordinarily carry limited weight. Under this jurisdiction’s law, the odor of cannabis alone does not establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause because adult possession is lawful.

4. Consent must be voluntary under the totality of circumstances. Its scope is what a reasonable person would understand from the exchange.

5. A driver ordinarily may consent to a search of the vehicle but lacks apparent authority over a passenger’s closed personal bag when officers know or reasonably should know that the bag belongs exclusively to the passenger.

6. A reliable drug-detection dog’s alert can establish probable cause. Evidence resulting from an unlawfully prolonged stop is excluded unless an exception breaks the causal connection.

7. A cellphone may not be searched without a warrant absent exigent circumstances. Compelling a fingerprint to unlock a phone is not testimonial under this jurisdiction’s law, but it remains a search requiring lawful authority.

8. Evidence derived from an unlawful search is excluded unless obtained through an independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, or another recognized exception.

9. Independent source applies only if the decision to seek a warrant was not prompted by the unlawful search and the lawfully obtained information independently established probable cause.

10. Inevitable discovery requires proof that an established lawful process probably would have discovered the evidence. Speculation that officers could have sought a warrant is insufficient.

11. A warrant must particularly describe the places and data to be searched. Evidence found outside the warrant’s permitted scope is suppressed unless the evidence was discovered while officers were lawfully examining data within that scope.

12. Miranda applies to custodial interrogation. A suspect must unambiguously invoke the right to counsel. Police need not stop for an ambiguous reference, although the ambiguity may affect whether a later waiver was knowing and voluntary.

13. A deliberate question-first, warn-later strategy may render a post-warning statement inadmissible unless effective curative measures separate the interrogations.

## Facts

Police were investigating an armed pharmacy robbery. A broadcast described a white SUV with a partial plate believed to contain the characters “8K7.” Witnesses reported a male driver and female passenger.

Officer Grant saw a white SUV with plate “8KT.” He followed it for two blocks and stopped it for allegedly failing to stop completely at a stop sign. His dashboard video shows the SUV slowing substantially, but a delivery truck briefly blocks the camera at the exact moment the SUV reaches the line. The driver says he stopped.

The officer obtained the driver’s license and registration. Eight minutes later, he had completed the records check. At minute nine, he returned the documents but said, “Hang tight for a minute,” and began asking where the occupants had been.

The driver appeared nervous. There were two air fresheners hanging from the mirror, and Grant smelled burnt cannabis. The driver said he had legally smoked earlier.

At minute eleven, Grant asked, “You do not mind if I look through the vehicle, right?” The driver responded, “Go ahead. I have nothing.”

The female passenger immediately said, “Do not search my backpack.” A zipped backpack was on the rear seat beside her. Grant did not begin searching because another officer was bringing a detection dog.

The dog arrived at minute fifteen and alerted near the rear passenger door. Its certification was current, although training records showed two false alerts during the preceding six months.

Officers searched the SUV. They found stolen medication beneath the driver’s seat and a handgun inside the passenger’s backpack. The passenger repeatedly stated that the backpack was hers.

The driver was arrested. At the station, police seized his phone. Without obtaining a warrant, an officer pressed the driver’s thumb against the sensor and opened the phone. The officer read messages stating:

> “R has the pills. Same split as the last job.”

After seeing the messages, detectives applied for a warrant. The affidavit included:

* The messages from the phone.
* The medication found beneath the driver’s seat.
* The handgun from the backpack.
* Pharmacy video showing a robber wearing a jacket similar to one found in the SUV.
* An anonymous tip stating that the driver had been discussing robberies.

The affidavit did not disclose that police had already searched the phone.

The warrant authorized a search for communications, photographs, and location data concerning the pharmacy robbery during the 48 hours before and after the crime. While searching, police reviewed six months of photographs and found images indicating unrelated drug sales.

At the station, before giving Miranda warnings, a detective told the driver:

> “We found the gun and the pills. Tell us who planned this.”

The driver responded, “I just drove. R planned it.”

The detective then administered Miranda warnings. The driver said, “Do I need a lawyer?” The detective responded, “That is your choice.” The driver continued answering questions.

Five minutes later, the driver said, “I think maybe I should talk to someone.” The detective responded, “We can clear this up now, or everyone will blame you.” The driver then gave a detailed confession.

## Assignment

Analyze:

* The validity of the initial stop.
* Whether the stop was unlawfully prolonged.
* The driver’s consent and its effect.
* The dog alert and its causal relationship to any unlawful extension.
* The search of the passenger’s backpack.
* The driver’s and passenger’s ability to challenge the different searches.
* The warrantless phone unlocking and initial phone review.
* Whether the later warrant is supported by independent lawful evidence.
* The scope of the warrant and the unrelated drug photographs.
* The pre-warning statement, post-warning statements, and references to counsel.
* Which evidence is most likely to be suppressed.
* How suppression would affect the viable charges and plea leverage.
* The most defensible litigation and negotiation strategy for each side.

---

---