Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Police officers are not actually required to give Miranda warnings (aka to read the defendant his rights) when they make an arrest. They should do so before questioning someone who is in custody, since otherwise the answers usually could not be used against that person in court. But it sounds like the officers didn't ask you any questions. If they didn't, then the fact that you weren't Mirandized shouldn't matter. The same is true even if they *did* question you but don't try to use your answers (or anything else that they learned later because of those answers) against you.

You also complain that the officers didn't ask you whether the powder was yours or if you knew what it was. Here again, they didn't have to ask you these things. Assuming that the search was proper (more on this below), the physical evidence is still admissible against you, and the prosecutor may be able to persuade a jury that you possessed it and knew what it was even though you were never asked about it. (If the officers had asked you about it without Mirandizing you first, then your answers likely could not be used against you - but the physical evidence still could.)

There's another reason why it doesn't matter much that you weren't asked if the powder was yours or your passenger's. Possession is not the same thing as ownership, and possession is all you've been charged with. All the D.A. will need to prove to win the possession part of the case is that you had the powder in your custody or control and that you knew what it was at the time. She won't have to prove that you ever owned it, since ownership is not part of the crime's definition. People possess things they don't own all the time, and it's easy for two people to simultaneously possess the same thing. So even if you had told the officers that the powder belonged to your passenger -- and even if you could prove that it did -- you could still be guilty of possessing it.

That the police report didn't mention marijuana may be a useful point to argue about when and if you go to trial, since it suggests the officers wrote their report carelessly and may lead jurors to doubt the rest of it. But I don't see how else it could help you, since you weren't charged with possessing marijuana.

This brings me back to the legality of the search. It was probably legal, but whether it was will depend on additional facts. If the search wasn't legal then anything the officers found likely could not be used as evidence against you. Note that there are exceptions to this rule. Also, even if the search became illegal at some point, it's plausible that the police had already found the bill with the powder on it by then.

You should get a lawyer right away if you don't have one already, and you should ask her whether you have grounds to challenge the search. While you're at it, ask her about all the other points you raised here. It's possible that she will see things differently, especially if some facts you haven't mentioned turn out to be important.

Good luck.

Sounds like this may be your first arrest, since you seem unfamiliar with the rules of the game.

The advice of Mr Hoffman is good: get an experienced attorney. He will go over all the facts with you and then be able to give an opinion on whether any Motions to Suppress might do you some good. Even if not, he can certainly use your facts and arguments to either get a 'deal' acceptable to you, or use them at trial. If serious about hiring counsel, contact me for a free consult at 714-960-7584