Whether law enforcement agents must read Miranda warnings during an investigative traffic stop prior to formal arrest, whether possession with intent to distribute requires proof of control over drugs, and whether deportation of a material witness violates due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Victor Campos, Martin Moncada, Karina Castro, and Castro’s daughter walked into the United States on December 23, 2020. The next morning, they stood by the highway and flagged down a car, the driver of which offered them a ride. The young man driving the car later dropped them at a roadside park and asked them to get out and wait, promising to return. He did. His car was now filled with wrapped bundles of marijuana. Campos and Moncada rearranged the bundles so the four travelers could wedge themselves back into the car to keep their ride. Down the road, the car was stopped by Texas troopers. The troopers removed the driver and handcuffed him by the roadside. They held the other four inside the car until Border Patrol arrived. When Border Patrol arrived, agents parked a transport van, with an interior cage, in front of the car. Agents loaded the driver, Castro, and her daughter in the van before asking Campos and Moncada, still held inside the car, for their citizenship, where they were coming from, and then whether they knew what they were sitting on. When they confirmed they knew it was marijuana, agents removed Moncada and loaded him in the van as well. Finally, Campos was removed. During that removal, including a frisk, an agent accused Campos of importing the marijuana, using his phones to coordinate the ii smuggling event, and helping with the marijuana. Campos admitted to helping as he was being walked to the secure transport van. The young man wasn’t quite 18, so the government did not prosecute him for the bundles, which contained marijuana. Instead, it charged Campos and Moncada with possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute it. They both told the arresting agents the story of the journey. The government did not charge Castro. They did deport her before she could be interviewed, deposed, or subpoenaed by a defendant. At trial, the government acknowledged through its witnesses that Castro’s story of the journey was in accord with the men’s defense, but it asked the jury to doubt her story that its witnesses had recounted. The jury found the men guilty. This case presents three important questions, a Miranda question, the subject of a deep and long-standing circuit split that the Fifth Circuit has now joined, a possession question that has now divided the circuits, and a question concerning the government’s responsibility not to deport a witness it knows has evidence material and favorable to the defense. The issues presented are: 1. Whether, during an investigation arising from a traffic stop, agents, who act reasonably under the Fourth Amendment, must iii read Miranda warnings when they restrain and interrogate someone prior to the completion of a formal arrest. 2. Whether, for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, proof of possession with intent to distribute requires a showing of control over the drugs, rather than mere touching of someone else’s drugs. 3. Whether, when the government has deported a witness who has material evidence favorable to the defendant, that evidence can be deemed cumulative if the government admits a summary of the deported witness’s testimony and then asks the jury to disbelieve that summary.