The police barrack calls an officer and tells him an anonymous caller said there was a red, convertible Mercedes driving all over the road on Rt. 50 heading toward the Bay Bridge. The officer gets onto Rt. 50 in his marked patrol vehicle and sees a red, convertible Mercedes driving in front of him. He follows the vehicle but does not see the vehicle committing any motor vehicle violations. He does notice that the tag light is out on the vehicle and so stops the vehicle for that violation. He approaches the driver wearing his official police uniform, including his sidearm, and immediately detects the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, notices the driver's eyes are glassy and bloodshot and that his speech is slurred. He asks the driver to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests and to remove his keys from the ignition. As the driver is exiting another marked patrol vehicle pulls up and that officer, also in uniform and armed, approaches the driver. While standing outside of the driver's vehicle, the officers begin to question the driver regarding where he is coming from and whether he has been drinking. The driver initially denies having had anything to drink but after being confronted with the officer's observations regarding his breath and eyes, admits having 12 beers and being "lit up". The officers administer the field sobriety tests which the driver fails and he is then arrested for drunk driving. After placing handcuffs on the driver and placing him in the vehicle, the officer searches the vehicle and recovers a bag of marijuana. He then walks back to his patrol vehicle and displays the bag in front of the driver's face and holds it there. The driver then says "yes, it's mine".

1. The defense argues the stop was illegal because the officer simply used the tag light as an excuse to stop the driver he suspected of being the drunk driver the barrack called him about and not really for the tag light. Was the stop valid? Why or why not?

2. What likely arguments will the defense make regarding the initial statements of the driver to the officers regarding having had 12 beers and being "lit"? Should the court suppress these statements made to the officers? Why or why not? Regardless of your answer, what factors help the defense?

3. What likely arguments will the defense make regarding the driver's admission that "yes, it's mine"? Should the court suppress that statement? Why or why not?