Drugs, drugs, who owns the drugs?

Does a police officer's threat to arrest everyone in a car if the owner of the drugs inside doesn't confess turn a traffic stop into custodial interrogation for purposes of Miranda rights? Not by itself, although it is a factor to be considered in a variety of contexts.

In State v. James, the police stopped a car. There was a female driver, Mr. James and the male owner of the vehicle inside. The deputy obtained the owner's consent to search the vehicle. The officer searched the car and found a glass pipe and a brown and white hair "scrunchy." Deputy Sterling found a small ziplock bag containing methamphetamine within the scrunchy.

According to the Court: "Deputy Sterling then questioned the occupants of the car about who owned the drugs. No one admitted to ownership. Deputy Sterling conducted pat-down Terry frisks of the occupants, but did not discover drugs or weapons." The officer admitted that he told the suspects that if somebody didn't confess to ownership he would arrest them all. Mr. James then said "I will take possession." He was not given Miranda warnings prior to the admission. (He later explained that the drugs really belonged to the owner of the car and that he took the blame because the owner was on probation and he didn't want the owner to go to jail.)

On appeal James argued that he was in custody when the police officer threatened to arrest them all if no one confessed and that the statement should be suppressed. The Court wrote in this regard:

"This brings us to the critical inquiry: the effect, if any, of Deputy Sterling's threat to arrest the occupants of the vehicle if no one admitted possessing the contraband that he located. We find that the threat of lawful arrest alone does not transform non-custodial questioning into the functional equivalent of arrest, requiring Miranda warnings. Deputy Sterling, upon finding drugs in the car, had probable cause to arrest all of the occupants. Deputy Sterling's statement of his intended future conduct cannot be said to objectively change the degree of restraint at the time of the statement. Although such a threat may well have implications as to the voluntariness of any statement made in response thereto, it cannot be said to have objectively modified the degree of restraint on James' freedom of movement at that time." (Emphasis added.)

The Court emphasized that it was deciding this case "[b]ased on the limited evidence presented to the district court" and that other factors such as the duration of the detention, the extent of questioning and the visibility of the stop were also relevant to the question of whether a person is in custody for purposes of Miranda.

State v. James, http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/State%20v.%20James,%2035856.pdf

If I had to guess about who hid the drugs in the hair scrunchy I'd guess the female driver. Call it a hunch. It seems Mr. James took the rap out of a sense of gallantry, but it doesn't pay to be gallant anymore, if it ever did.