A vehicle occupied by two males was stopped for speeding. Prior to stopping, the driver dropped dope out of the driver's side window. The dope was later recovered. No other contraband was found. Both were taken to jail. While at the jail, the passenger was being taken to a holding cell. Without any questioning, the passenger states: "That's my sh_t, man." The deputy then asked the passenger (without any miranda warnings) what he was talking about. Passenger replied, "The stuff you found." The deputy then advised the passenger not to say anything else unless he wanted to give a written statement. Passenger stated, "No." We're facing a motion to suppress. The first statement should be admissible because no interrogation. We're worried about the second one after the question by the deputy. Any ideas as to admissibility or is this a lost cause? Thanks.

The defendant's first statement was volunteered by the defendant, so clearly that is admissible. The officer's question, "what do you mean?" is not interrogation; it simply asked the def. to clarify his first statement. Suppose the officer has said instead, "I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about," he would have communicated exactly the same message to the defendant as his question, "what do you mean?" and since it was not a question, any response would clearly be admissible. I don't see a problem no matter how he expressed his confusion about the defendant's first statement.

I hope someone tells that officer to not shut up defendant's who wish to volunteer their guilt. If they want to blab, let them.

I agree there is no problem - I also agree that it is good policy to allow volunteering suspects to blab as much as they want. I do like the cop's thinking though as it shows "good faith" for future reference in case there is a sticky confession that comes up down the road with a different suspect.

Second statement is good. Had a case several years ago where police officer found 1/2 Kilo of coke in car. Defendant was handcuffed at rear of car while officer serched the vehicle. When he found the cocaine, the officer ask the rhetorical question "Well, well, well. What have we here?" to which the defendant responded " It's cocaine A** Hole. Take me to jail" the officer was compliant.

The Houston Court held that the statement was res gestae under 38.23 (5). The case was unpublished State V. Freddie Ray Lockett.