A federal judge in Puerto Rico has ruled that a man’s answer to a police officer’s question about whether he had a medical marijuana license must be excluded from evidence because the question was asked while he was in custody and before he received his Miranda warning.
In a 29-page ruling issued November 5, U.S. District Judge Silvia Carreño-Coll determined that asking someone whether they possess a medical marijuana license can constitute an interrogation under the Fifth Amendment because the answer may establish unlawful possession of a controlled substance. The judge described the issue as one of first impression in the District of Puerto Rico.
The case involves Samuel Ramos-Bonilla, who faces six federal criminal charges, including possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
The dispute stems from a January 29, 2025, search of a residence in Canóvanas, Puerto Rico. According to testimony presented during suppression hearings, officers with the Puerto Rico Police Bureau restrained Ramos-Bonilla while executing a search warrant. During the search, Officer Arelie Ortega-Goveo discovered a black plastic container containing marijuana remnants in the living room.
After finding the marijuana, Ortega asked Ramos-Bonilla whether he possessed a medical marijuana license. He responded that he did not. Only after receiving that answer did the officer verbally advise him of his Miranda rights.
The judge found that Ramos-Bonilla was legally in custody at the time of the exchange, noting that he had been physically restrained and accompanied by officers throughout the search. Under those circumstances, the court determined that a reasonable person would not have believed they were free to leave.
The central question was whether asking about his medical marijuana license constituted an interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. The court concluded that it did, reasoning that an individual in those circumstances could reasonably fear that their answer would be used against them in a criminal prosecution.
Carreño-Coll explained that a person asked whether they possess a medical marijuana license could have a “real and appreciable fear” of self-incrimination, particularly when police have already discovered marijuana.
The ruling also drew a comparison between questions about medical marijuana authorization and questions about firearm permits. Citing previous federal decisions involving firearm licensing, the judge explained that asking whether someone possesses a permit can effectively require them to disclose whether their possession of a regulated item is unlawful.
The court further noted that Puerto Rico allows medical marijuana possession under certain conditions, but holding a medical marijuana license does not necessarily make all possession lawful. Even someone with authorization can violate applicable restrictions, meaning questions about licensing can carry potentially incriminating consequences.
Based on those findings, the judge granted Ramos-Bonilla’s request to suppress his answer that he did not possess a medical marijuana license.
However, the court rejected his efforts to exclude several other statements. These included his response to a question about whether he had a firearm permit, which the judge determined came after Miranda warnings had been administered.
The judge also allowed a written statement Ramos-Bonilla provided at the police station, despite his earlier invocation of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present. The court credited testimony that he voluntarily assumed responsibility for contraband found at the residence rather than making the statement in response to improper questioning.
The November 5 order therefore grants only part of his suppression request. Although prosecutors cannot use his answer about lacking a medical marijuana license, the remaining challenged statements were not excluded.
The decision does not dismiss the underlying criminal charges. Its significance centers on the court’s determination that questions about medical marijuana authorization, when asked during custodial questioning, can trigger the same constitutional protections that apply to other potentially incriminating inquiries.
