WPC: Dh $98&#(`RYٰ*82iš(V&dS O%Ɗ/G.*ՙt#ʳх)8jj9 ]@;$:J+Gtc 3 :W}(Ng!f}!0RZJG1cyy%OdR;?K׍I3m5ǺߋNKzbK{6}ϋZ 6%*E[{ww3$8~/R[ -go8R. !1*<=U3".0o f&aA>98@]2;FZJX蓂LgiZ~.z~}c1Y]-ɢ6ڃNl-zUlh )5,V3Ƨ qAWB @s7Ƌ˼Nɴf.q#c#jUN3 % 0 ^  w 4# 7 F mH 0N_ 0U 0 0 0 0W 0  0 0^ 0 0 0Y 0$ 0 0x 0 0 0I 0 0_ 0 0 0 01 0 0g 0 0U> NG 1uI 72 0(c 00S 0N 0< 0  0Dv! 1s% 72 & 1{<& 72& 0Ow& 0d`' 0A',( 0B( 0>) 0v>) 0`) 0`* 0`t* 0.* 0`+ 08b+ 0+ 02l, 0, 0:h- 0Y- 0_- 0Z. 082/ 0j0 B*1 D/2 D+G2 0r2 D/3 0%4 064 0)5 0:5 0^96 0<6 B6 1e6U6U7U*7U:7 0:7 18 729bH9 0P9 0<: 04T@:\\orion\Front_Office_HP4000,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(dm$XXXX[X XXX USUS.,zN> gg::i+003|xU(W$    *+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  \  `&Times New Roman2"37=CIQYag1.a.a.(1)(a)(i)1)a))i)(;$2"  0  .3  0  0.Normal(O$<:Definition T((3$ m!XXXX[XhXXX USUS.,      0  (#$  0   RichelleEscobedo T]heDickersonWithrowBehelercuriamMathiasonKeohaneAlvaradoStansbury A]nOrozcoShatzer S.CtConleyMacklemFradiuet]heirend[ingBerkemerMcCarty i]fMendenhallAEDPAJ.D.BJ.D.B.v]olunteeredInnisMauroMunizBogleHaleyunwarned C.f.MassiahMayfieldPenryMathisMacias plur opn DUIQuarlesCarrilloCressyq]uestionsseizableu]ndernoncoerciveKlassinititatedPrysockDuckworthEaganBerghuisThompkinsRobersonreassert[edZerbstBurbinePataneElstaduncoerciveSeibertMirandizedCarrizalesWeisselbergFulminante L.Ed337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)21)03CIOU[agmLettersA.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.4A.(O $0  2"  a  .3  0` (#(#(cX$0  0` (#(#2"  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#(Vm$0     <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5 (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,KS*CODEKY<6X9`(Courier NewKS'\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4NV2Keyboard KY<6X9`(Courier NewKS'\  `&Times New RomanS <z:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KY<6X9`(Courier NewKS'\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7M(X7  ?Z%2A`Arial?  S'\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X7&  d dL)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7P(X7  ?Z%2A`Arial?  S'\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X7L)2dxd0KS.SampleKY<6X9`(Courier NewKS'\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8KS6TypewriterKY<6X9`(Courier NewKS'\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   d 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial-+> Z"Book Antiqua (xr$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2"(  0  )3  0 (# (#0?AGMS[cgmA, 1, aA.1.a.(1)(a)ia)1))]1)- -($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  a  )3  0h(#(#<:Default Para(,!$0  0` (#(#  m!XXXX[Xh2XXX USUS.,  _    XXX[Xh2XX  FirstDistrictAppellateProject  TrainingSeminar T #XX# January21,2011XX d   MirandaBasicsandCurrentDevelopments  <  #XX#XX #XXW# #[Xh2XXX# JonathanD.Soglin,StaffAttorney | RichelleBecker,LawClerk r TiffanyGates,LawClerkXXX[Xh2 XX h #XXw# January2011#[Xh2XXXU#  ^    TableofContents  B  Page      Introduction@"@"H(#.  1  8Vm  8Vm0     I.0(#(#Miranda#@"@"H(#.  (#(##28Vm5݌ r  Ќ  b!  b!0  0` (#(#    b!݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  b!  b!0  0` (#(#    A.0` ` (#` (#MirandainaNutshell #@"@"H(#.44*` (#` (##2b!݌ Z  Ќ  b!  b!0  0` (#(#    B.0` ` (#` (#ConstitutionallyBased;NotMerelyProphylactic#@"@"H(#.00C` (#` (##2b!݌ F   Ќ  b!  b!0  0` (#(#    b!݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  b!  b!3 0  0` (#(#    C.0` ` (#` (#MirandaWarningsAreRequiredWhentheSuspectisSubjecttoCustodial .~  Interrogation#@"@"H(#. !` (#` (##3b!3 N ݌ $t  Ќ  b!  b!y 0  0` (#(#    b!y ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  b!  b! 0  0` (#(#    D.0` ` (#` (#CustodyforMiranda=FormalArrestorRestraintonMovementtoa `  DegreeAssociatedWithFormalArrest#@"@"H(#.8` (#` (##3b! 4 ݌ V Ќ  b!  b!o 0  0` (#(#    E.0` ` (#` (#Interrogation#@"@"H(#. !` (#` (##7b!o ݌ B Ќ  b!  b!X 0  0` (#(#    F.0` ` (#` (#Exceptions#!!G(#.$ $ ` (#` (##11b!X s ݌ . Ќ  b!  b!?0  0` (#(#    G.0` ` (#` (#FormofMirandaWarnings#!!G(#.,` (#` (##13b!?Z݌  Ќ  b!  b!:0  0` (#(#    H.0` ` (#` (#InvocationorWaiverofRightsDistinctInquiries#!!G(#.G` (#` (##15b!:U݌  Ќ  b!  b!J0  0` (#(#    I.0` ` (#` (#Invocation#!!G(#.  ` (#` (##15b!Je݌  Ќ  b!  b!10  0` (#(#    J.0` ` (#` (#WaiverofMirandaRights#!!G(#.ff,` (#` (##16b!1L݌  Ќ  b!  b!%0  0` (#(#    b!%@݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  b!  b!0  0` (#(#    K.0` ` (#` (#ConsequencesofMirandaViolation#!!G(#.5` (#` (##18b!݌ v  Ќ  b!  b!0  0` (#(#    L.0` ` (#` (#ShowingPrejudice#!!G(#.%` (#` (##19b!݌ b" Ќ  b!  b!0  0` (#(#    M.0` ` (#` (#FederalHabeasReviewAvailable#!!G(#.3` (#` (##20b!݌ N$! Ќ   N    )l$&    _8XXdd8Introduction   XTwoprimaryconstitutionalconsiderationsgoverntheadmissibilityofdefendants  confessionsandadmissionsincriminalprosecutions:thevoluntarinessofthe  statementsandwhethertheywereobtainedinviolationofMirandarequirements.  Thevoluntarinessjurisprudence,rootedinEnglishcommonlaw,developedfirst,with l  theSupremeCourtholdingthatadmissionofcoercedconfessionswasunconstitutional. b  Althoughanearlycasebasedtherulebarringadmissionofcoercedconfessionsonthe X  FifthAmendmentrighttoremainsilent,theCourtprimarilybasedtheruleondue N   processconsiderations.(Dickersonv.UnitedStates(2000)530U.S.428,432434 D  (providing historicalaccountofthelawgoverningtheadmissionofconfessions); :  Bramv.UnitedStates,168U.S.532,542(statingvoluntarinesstestiscontrolledbyFifth 0  Amendment);Brownv.Mississippi(1936)297U.S.278(coercedconfessioninadmissible &v  underDueProcessClause).) l  Inthe1960s,apairofWarrenCourtdecisions changedthefocusofmuchofthe X inquiryindeterminingtheadmissibilityofsuspectsincriminatingstatements. N (Dickerson,530U.S.at434.)First,theCourtheldthattheFifthAmendmentrightagainst D selfincriminationisincorporatedintheFourteenthAmendmentsDueProcessClause : andthusappliestothestates.(Malloyv.Hogan(1964)378U.S.1,611.)And,famously, 0 inMiranda,theCourtheldthatadefendantsstatementsmadeduringcustodial & interrogationareinadmissibleintheprosecutorscaseinchiefunlesstheofficeradvised  thesuspectofhisrights(detailedbelow)andthesuspectvoluntarilywaivedthose  rights.(Mirandav.Arizona(1966)384U.S.436.)Miranda,waspresagedbyEscobedov.  Illinois(1964)378U.S.478,inwhichtheCourtheldthatasuspectsadmissionswere  inadmissiblewhere,duringcustodialinterrogation,thesuspecthadrequestedandbeen  deniedtheopportunitytoconsultanattorneyandpoliceofficershadnotproperly  advisedhimofhisrighttoremainsilent.  In2010,atrioofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionsmodifiedorelaboratedon |! importantaspectsofMirandalaw,thusprecipitatingthesematerialswhichoutlineboth r" thebasicsofandrecentdevelopmentsinMirandalaw. h#  NotethatMirandaisanexpansiveareoflawwithmanyaspectstoit.Italsothesubject T% " ofcountlesspublisheddecisions,manyofwhichareveryfactintensive.Anoutlinelike J&!# thiscanonlyprovideonereferencepointandresearchshouldneverendhere.Cases @'"$ citedhereinareonlyrepresentative. 6(#%    "*r%'   9OYI.  Miranda    ](02)"+"  #+$2  A  .3  0    MirandainaNutshell+$%݌x(#(# Ќ  Adefendantsownstatementsmadeduringcustodialinterrogationbylawenforcement \  officialsareinadmissibleintheprosecutorscaseinchiefunless(1)theywerepreceded R  bywarningstothedefendantthathehasarighttoremainsilent,thatanystatementhe H  doesmakemaybeusedasevidenceagainsthim,andthathehasarighttothepresence >   ofanattorney,eitherretainedorappointedand(2)thedefendantvoluntarilywaived 4  thoserights: *z   X X [T]heprosecutionmaynotusestatements,whetherexculpatoryor f  inculpatory,stemmingfromcustodialinterrogationofthedefendant  \  unlessitdemonstratestheuseofproceduralsafeguardseffectivetosecure R theprivilegeagainstself-incrimination.Bycustodialinterrogation,we H meanquestioninginitiatedbylawenforcementofficersafterapersonhas > beentakenintocustodyorotherwisedeprivedofhisfreedomofactionin 4 anysignificantway.Asfortheproceduralsafeguardstobeemployed, * unlessotherfullyeffectivemeansaredevisedtoinformaccusedpersons   oftheirrightofsilenceandtoassureacontinuousopportunitytoexercise  it,thefollowingmeasuresarerequired.Priortoanyquestioning,the   personmustbewarnedthathehasarighttoremainsilent,thatany  statementhedoesmakemaybeusedasevidenceagainsthim,andthathe  hasarighttothepresenceofanattorney,eitherretainedorappointed.  Thedefendantmaywaiveeffectuationoftheserights,providedthe  waiverismadevoluntarily,knowinglyandintelligently.   X ( X'(Mirandav.Arizona(1966)384U.S.436,444.)  v   Thus,theinitialquestionstobeaskediswhetherthedefendantwas incustodyand b" whetherthestatementsweremadeinresponseto interrogation.Iftherewasno X#  custodialinterrogation,Mirandadoesnotapply.Iftherewascustodialinterrogation, N$! thenthequestionsshifttowhetherandwhentheofficergaveproperandcomplete D% " MirandawarningsandwhetherthesuspectwaivedtheMirandarights. :&!#  "+"  +02  B  .3  0    ConstitutionallyBased;NotMerelyProphylactic +010݌&(v#%(#(# Ќ  Overtheyears,theCourt repeatedlyreferredtotheMirandawarningsas  *Z%' prophylactic.[citation]andnotthemselvesrightsprotectedbytheConstitution. +P&( (Dickerson,530U.S.at437438.)Relyingonsuchlanguage,theFourthCircuithadheld +F') inDickersonthatMirandaprotectionswerenotconstitutionallyrequiredandindeed  supersededbya1966federalstatute,18U.S.C.3501,whichstatedthatconfessions  shallbeadmissibleinfederalcriminalprosecutionsiftheywerevoluntary.(United  Statesv.Dickerson(1999)166F.3d667,687690.)TheSupremeCourt,inanopinion  authoredbyChiefJusticeRehnquist,reversed,holdingthatsection3501couldnot  supersedeMirandabecausetheMirandaprotectionsareconstitutionallyrequired. ~  (Dickersonv.UnitedStates,530U.S.at438441.) t  Asevidenceoftherulesconstitutionalunderpinnings,theCourtpointedtothefacts `  thatithadappliedMirandatostatecourtprosecutions(530U.S.at438),it hadallowed V   prisonerstobringallegedMirandaviolationbeforethefederalcourtsinhabeascorpus L  proceedings(530U.S.at439,n.3),thatMirandaitselfhaddescribedthequestionbefore B  itasinvolvingtheprivilegeagainstselfincriminationandtheneed togiveconcrete 8  constitutionalguidelineforlawenforcementagenciesandcourtstofollow(530U.S.at439 .~  [citingMiranda,384U.S.at441442](emphasisaddedbyDickersonCourt)),andthe $t  MirandaopinioncontainsnumerousstatementsindicatingthattheCourtunderstood j itselftobe announcingaconstitutionalrule(530U.S.at439,andn.4). ` TheconstitutionalfoundationoftheMirandaprotectionsistheFifthAmendment L privilegeagainstselfincrimination.(Seee.g.Miranda,384U.S.at476( Therequirement B ofwarningsandwaiverofrightsisafundamentalwithrespecttotheFifthAmendment 8 privilegeandnotsimplyapreliminaryritualtoexistingmethodsofinterrogation); . Withrowv.Williams(1993)507U.S.680,692(referringtothe FifthAmendmenttrial $ rightprotectedbyMiranda);andDickerson,530U.S.at439,fn.4(collectingreferencesin  MirandatoprotectionofFifthAmendment)andat440,fn.5(collectingcitationstoother  SupremeCourtcasesreferringtoFifthAmendmentunderpinningsofMiranda).  "+"  +<2  C  .3  0    MirandaWarningsAreRequiredWhentheSuspectisSubjecttoCustodial  Interrogation.+<=݌(#(# Ќ  Mirandawarningsarerequiredwhenanindividualissubjecttocustodialinterrogation. x! (Mirandav.Arizona(1966)384U.S.436,439.)Custodialinterrogationis questioning n" initiatedbylawenforcementofficersafterapersonhasbeentakenintocustodyor d#  otherwisedeprivedofhisfreedomofactioninanysignificantway.(Id.atp.444.) Z$!  "+"  +?2  D  .3  0    CustodyforMiranda=FormalArrestorRestraintonMovementtoaDegree F&!# AssociatedWithFormalArrest +?@݌8'"$(#(# Ќ  "6 "  6 A0  2  1  .3  0` (#(#  Standard:Whendeterminingifasuspectisincustody, theultimate )l$& inquiryiswhetherthereisaformalarrestorrestraintonfreedomof *b%' movementofthedegreeassociatedwithformalarrest.(Californiav. +X&( Beheler(1983)463U.S.1121,1125(percuriam)(citingOregonv.Mathiason +N') (1977)429U.S.492,495).)TheCourthasdescribedthetestasinquiring   wouldareasonablepersonhavefeltheorshewasnotatlibertyto  terminatetheinterrogationandleave.(Thompsonv.Keohane(1995)516  U.S.99,112;seealsoYarboroughv.Alvarado(2004)541U.S.652,664665  [citingThompsonv.Keohaneandfindingsuspectwasnotincustody  because Alloftheseobjectivefactsareconsistentwithaninterrogation ~  environmentinwhichareasonablepersonwouldhavefeltfreeto t  terminatetheinterviewandleave].)6 AIA݌j ` (#` (# Ќ  "6 "  6 OF0  2  2  .3  0` (#(#  Thecustodydeterminationisbasedonthetotalityofthecircumstances. V   (Stansburyv.California(1994)511U.S.318,322( Indeterminingwhether L  anindividualwasincustody,acourtmustexamineallofthe B  circumstancessurroundingtheinterrogation....)6 OF|F݌8 ` (#` (# Ќ  "6 "  6 ~H0  2  3  .3  0` (#(#  AppellateReview:CustodyDeterminationisaMixedQuestionofLawandFact $t  toBeReviewedDeNovo.(Thompsonv.Keohane(1995)516U.S.99,113-114.)6 ~HH݌j` (#` (# Ќ  "6 "  6 J0  2  4  .3  0` (#(#  Custodystatusisanobjectivetest: [T]heinitialdeterminationofcustody V dependsontheobjectivecircumstancesoftheinterrogation,notonthe L subjectiveviewsharboredbyeithertheinterrogatingofficersorthe B personbeingquestioned.(Stansburyv.California(1994)511U.S.318, 8 323.) [A]nofficer'sviewsconcerningthenatureofaninterrogation,or . beliefsconcerningthepotentialculpabilityoftheindividualbeing $ questioned,maybeoneamongmanyfactorsthatbearuponthe  assessmentwhetherthatindividualwasincustody,butonlyifthe  officer'sviewsorbeliefsweresomehowmanifestedtotheindividual  underinterrogationandwouldhaveaffectedhowareasonablepersonin  thatpositionwouldperceivehisorherfreedomtoleave.(Id.at325.)6 J>J݌` (#` (# Ќ  "6 "  6 N0  2  5  .3  0` (#(#  Factors6 N O݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  "7X"  7XO0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Location:Asuspectcanbeconsidered incustodyevenwhennot z" atthepolicestation.(E.g.Orozcov.Texas(1969)394U.S.324,327 p#  (suspectwasconsideredunderarrestandincustodywhen f$! questionedinhisbedroomintheearlyhoursofthemorning \% " becausehewasnotfreetoleave).)Alternatively,asuspectcanbe R&!# questionedatthepolicestation,inacoerciveenvironment,andstill H'"$ notbeconsidered incustody,aslongasheisnotplacedunder >(#% formalarrestandhisfreedomofmovementisnotrestrictedinany 4)$& way.(E.g.Oregonv.Mathiason(1977)429U.S.492at496(wherethe **z%' suspectvoluntarilywenttothepolicestation,wastoldhewasnot  +p&( underarrest,andwasallowedtoleaveafterthepoliceinterview).)7OO݌,f') (# (# 9OY 9 9  ь  "7X"  7XT0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  WhereSuspectisAlreadyanInmate,HeorSheMayNotbe In  CustodyforPurposesofMiranda.7XTT݌ (# (# Ќ  "\r"  \r*V0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  1  )3  0 (# (#  PriortoMarylandv.Shatzer(2010)___U.S.___,130S.Ct.  1213,1224,theCourthad neverdecidedwhether  incarcerationconstitutescustodyforMirandapurposes.But ~  othercourts,includingCaliforniacourts,hadheldthatan t  incarceratedsuspectmaynotbe incustody.\r*VWV݌j (#(# Ќ  "`"  `X0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  a  )3  0h(#(#  TheFourthCircuitheldthatMirandadidapplyto V   questioningofaninmateunlesstherehadbeena L   changeinthesurroundingsoftheprisonerwhich B  resultsinanaddedimpositiononhisfreedomof 8  movement.(UnitedStatesv.Conley(4thCir.1985)779 .~  F.2d970,973.)`XX݌$t h(#h(# Ќ  "`"  `F[0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  b  )3  0h(#(#  Californiacaseshaddescribedabroadbasedtest ` consideringmultiplefactors: whetherthelanguage V summoningthedefendantfromhisprisonlodging L wascoercive,whetherthephysicalsurroundingsof B thequestioningwereundulycoercive,whetherthe 8 defendantwasconfrontedwithevidenceofguilt,and . whethertherewasanopportunitygiventothis $ persontoleavethesiteofthequestioning.(Peoplev.  Macklem(2007)149Cal.App.4th674,678;seealso  Peoplev.Fradiue(2000)80Cal.App.4th15,21.)`F[s[݌h(#h(# Ќ  "\r"  \r'_0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  2  )3  0 (# (#  InShatzer,theCourtconfrontedthequestioninthecontext  ofapplyingitsnewrulethata14daybreakincustody  endedthepresumptionthattheresumptionofquestioning   bypolicewascoercive.Therebeingatwoandahalfyear ! breakbetweenquestioningsessions,theCourtinShatzerhad z" todeterminetherehadbeenabreakinMirandacustody. p#  Althoughthedefendanthadbeeninprisonduringtheentire f$! periodinquestion,theCourtfoundthathisreleasetothe \% " generalpopulationconstitutedabreakincustodyfor R&!# purposesofMiranda.TheCourtreasonedthatthecoercive H'"$ pressuresofconcerninMirandaarenotpresentwhenthe >(#% suspectisalreadyinprisonbecause(1)oncethe 4)$& interrogationends,theyregainthe,albeitlimited,control **z%' theyhadovertheirlives,(2)they arenotisolatedwiththeir  +p&( accusers,(3) [t]heirdetention...isrelativelydisconnected ,f') fromtheirpriorunwillingnesstocooperateinan  investigation,and(4) [t]heformerinterrogatorhasno  powertoincreasethedurationofincarceration.(130S.Ct.at  12241225.)\r'_T_݌(#(# Ќ  "\r"  \re0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  3  )3  0 (# (#  ItisimplicitinShatzer,however,thataprisonerisincustody ~  forpurposesofMirandaduringtheperiodwhenheis t  removedfromthegeneralpopulationandtakenelsewhere j  forquestioning.(See130S.Ct.at1225,fn.6( Wedistinguish `  thedurationofincarcerationfromthedurationofwhat V   mightbetermedinterrogativecustody.Whenaprisoneris L  removedfromthegeneralprisonpopulationandtakentoa B  separatelocationforquestioning,thedurationofthat 8  separationisassuredlydependentuponhisinterrogators. .~  Forwhichreasononcehehasassertedarefusaltospeak $t  withoutassistanceofcounselEdwardspreventsanyeffortsto j gethimtochangehismindduringthatinterrogative ` custody)andIbid.(referringtothe inherentlycompelling V pressuresofcustodialinterrogationend[ing]when[Shatzer] L returnedtohisnormallifeintheprison).)\re$f݌B(#(# Ќ  "7X"  7Xk0  0` (#(#2  c  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TrafficStops:Personstemporarilydetainedpursuanttoroadside . trafficstopsarenotconsidered incustodybecauseofthebrief $ andnoncoercivenatureofsuchstops.(Berkemerv.McCarty(1984)  468U.S.420,437440.)However, [i]famotoristissubjectto  treatmentthatrendershimincustodyforpracticalpurposes,he  willbeentitledtothefullpanoplyofprotectionsprescribedby  Miranda.(Id.at440.)Note:TheBerkemerholdingthataperson   detainedduringaroutinetrafficisnot incustodyforpurposes  ofMirandaisintensionwiththeCourtscasesdefining detained   and incustodywithnearlyidenticallanguageregardingthe ! suspectnotfeelingfreetoleave.(CompareUnitedStatesv. z" Mendenhall(1980)446U.S.544,554(holdingthat apersonhasbeen p#  seizedwithinthemeaningoftheFourthAmendmentonlyif,in f$! viewofallofthecircumstancessurroundingtheincident,a \% " reasonablepersonwouldhavebelievedthathewasnotfreeto R&!# leave)withThompsonv.Keohane,516U.S.at112(holdingthat H'"$ personisincustodyforpurposesofMirandaif areasonable >(#% personwould havefeltheorshewasnotatlibertytoterminate 4)$&  theinterrogationandleave).)7Xkk݌**z%' (# (# Ќ  &     "7X"  7Xcs0  0` (#(#2  d  .3  0 ` (#` (#  SuspectsAgeorExperiencewithLawEnforcement7Xcss݌ (# (# Ќ  "\r"  \rt0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  1  )3  0 (# (#  Yarboroughv.Alvarez(2004)541U.S.652,124S.Ct.2140  '9s(decidedunderAEDPA):\rtt݌(#(# Ќ  "`"  ` v0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  a  )3  0h(#(#  PriorHistoryWithLawEnforcement.Asadenovo ~  matter,considerationofsuspectspriorhistorywith t  lawenforcementisanimproperfactor.Officerswill j  notlikelyknowthesuspectshistory.Inaddition,the `  relationshipbetweenthepasthistoryandwhetherthe V   currentencounteriscustodialisspeculative.Andthe L  inquiryturnstoomuchonthesuspectssubjective B  stateofmind.(541U.S.at668669.)` v8v݌8 h(#h(# Ќ  "`"  `Yy0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  b  )3  0h(#(#  SuspectsAge.Statecourtdidnotunreasonably $t  declinetoconsiderthesuspectsageasafactor. Our j opinionsapplyingtheMirandacustodytesthavenot ` mentionedthesuspect'sage,muchlessmandatedits V consideration.TheonlyindicationsintheCourt's L opinionsrelevanttoasuspect'sexperiencewithlaw B enforcementhaverejectedrelianceonsuchfactors. 8 (541U.S.at666667.)`Yyy݌.h(#h(# Ќ  "\r"  \r|0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  2  )3  0 (# (#  JL  M  .L  M  DL  M  .L  M  BL  M  ԀL  M  vL  M  .L  M  NorthL  M  ԀL  M  Carolina,L  M  L  M  No.0911121,Cert.Granted  11/1/2010L  M  L  M  L  M  L  M  :\r||݌(#(# Ќ  "`"  `:0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  a  )3  0h(#(#  QP:WhetherL  M  ԀL  M  aL  M  ԀL  M  courtL  M  ԀL  M  mayL  M  ԀL  M  considerL  M  ԀL  M  aL  M  ԀL  M  juvenileL  M  'L  M  sL  M  ԀL  M  ageL  M  ԀL  M  inL  M    L  M  aL  M  ԀL  M  MirandaL  M  ԀL  M  custodyL  M  ԀL  M  L  M  analysisL  M  ԀL  M  inL  M  ԀL  M  evaluatingL  M  ԀL  M  theL  M  ԀL  M  totalityL  M    L  M  ofL  M  ԀL  M  theL  M  ԀL  M  circumstancesL  M  ԀL  M  andL  M  ԀL  M  determiningL  M  wL  M  L  M  hetherL  M  ԀL  M  aL  M    L  M  reasonableL  M  ԀL  M  personL  M  ԀL  M  inL  M  ԀL  M  theL  M  ԀL  M  juvenileL  M  'L  M  sL  M  ԀL  M  positionL  M  ԀL  M  wouldL  M     L  M  haveL  M  ԀL  M  feltL  M  ԀL  M  L  M  heL  M  ԀL  M  orL  M  ԀL  M  sheL  M  ԀL  M  wasL  M  ԀL  M  notL  M  ԀL  M  freeL  M  ԀL  M  toL  M  ԀL  M  terminateL  M  ԀL  M  policeL  M   ! L  M  questioningL  M  ԀL  M  andL  M  ԀL  M  leaveL  M  ?`:g݌z"h(#h(# Ќ  "`"  `V0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  b  )3  0h(#(#  Note;J.D.B.isondirectreviewofastatecourt f$! decision,andthuswillnotbedecidedthrough \% " deferentialAEDPAstandardstheCourtappliedin R&!# Yarboroughv.Alvarez.`V݌H'"$h(#h(# Ќ  L  M  L  M  L  M  "+"  +ښ2  E  .3  0    Interrogation +ښNj݌4)$&(#(# Ќ  "6 "  6 s0  2  1  .3  0` (#(#  Mirandaprotectionsdonotapplyto [v]olunteeredstatements. (Miranda, +h&( 384U.S.at478;Peoplev.Ray(1996)13Cal.4th313,337.)6 s݌,^')` (#` (# Ќ  "6 "  6 0  2  2  .3  0` (#(#  Mirandawarningsareonlyrequiredwhenthesuspectissubjectedto  interrogation,whichisdefinedas expressquestioningoritsfunctional  equivalent.(RhodeIslandv.Innis(1980)446U.S.291,300301)6 6݌` (#` (# Ќ  "6 "  6 0  2  3  .3  0` (#(#  InInnis,theCourtdefinedthefunctionalequivalentofexpress  questioningas anywordsoractionsonthepartofthepolice(otherthan ~  thosenormallyattendanttoarrestandcustody)thatthepoliceshould t  knowarereasonablylikelytoelicitanincriminatingresponsefromthe j  suspect.(Id.at301;seealsoArizonav.Mauro(1987)481U.S.520,526527; `  Pennsylvaniav.Muniz(1990)496U.S.582,600-601.)6 ݌V  ` (#` (# Ќ  "6 "  6 0  2  4  .3  0` (#(#  InInnis,theCourtseemedtoclearlydistinguishbetween expressly B  questioningandthe functionalequivalentandtoonlyrequirean 8  inquiryintowhetherthepoliceconductwasreasonablylikelytoelicitan .~  incriminatingresponsefromthesuspectifthecaseinvolvedwordsor $t  actions,asopposedtoexpressquestioning.(446U.S.at301.)Somecourts, j however,haveheldthatevenexpressquestioningdoesnotrequire ` Mirandawarningsunlessthequestioningisreasonablylikelytoelicitan V incriminatingresponse.(Seee.g.UnitedStatesv.Bogle(D.C.Cir.1997)114 L F.3d1271,1275(collectingcases).)(InMuniz,theCourtheldthatcertain B expressquestionsaskedduringthebookingprocesswerenotsubjectto 8 Miranda.ButthiswasnotbecausetheCourtfoundsuchexpressquestions . werenot interrogation,butbecausetheCourtwasrecognizinga $  routinebookingquestionexceptiontoMirandaforbiographicaldata.  (Muniz,496U.S.at601.))6 ݌` (#` (# Ќ  "6 "  6 ژ0  2  5  .3  0` (#(#  Functionalequivalent:Thefunctionalequivalentof expressquestioning  canbe anywordsoractionsonthepartofthepolice(otherthanthose  normallyattendanttoarrestandcustody)thatthepoliceshouldknoware  reasonablylikelytoelicitanincriminatingresponsefromthesuspect.The   latterportionofthisdefinitionfocusesprimarilyupontheperceptionsof ! thesuspect,ratherthantheintentofthepolice.Thisfocusreflectsthefact z" thattheMirandasafeguardsweredesignedtovestasuspectincustody p#  withanaddedmeasureofprotectionagainstcoercivepolicepractices, f$! withoutregardtoobjectiveproofoftheunderlyingintentofthepolice.A \% " practicethatthepoliceshouldknowisreasonablylikelytoevokean R&!# incriminatingresponsefromasuspectthusamountstointerrogation. H'"$ (Innis,446U.S.at301.)Thedeterminationofwhetheranofficers >(#% statementisthefunctionalequivalentofinterrogationisahighlyfactual 4)$&  inquiry.Asamplingofdecisionsareprovided.6 ژ݌**z%'` (#` (# Ќ  "7X"  7Xў0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  InInnis,whilethedefendantwasbeingtransportedtothepolice   station,onepoliceofficersaidtoanotherthathehopedpolice  wouldcontinuesearchingforthemissinggunbecauseastudent  fromaschoolforthedisabledcouldpickitupandgethurt.(Innis,  446U.S.at294-295.)Thedefendantthenvolunteeredtheweapon's  location.TheSupremeCourtheldthiswasnotinterrogation ~  becausenothingfromtherecordindicatedtheofficerswereaware t  thedefendantwasparticularlysusceptibletoanappealtohis j  conscience.(Id.at302.)7Xў݌`  (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  InPeoplev.Clark(1993)5Cal.4th950,thedefendantwasbeing L  transportedtothehospitalbythepolicetoobtainabloodsample. B  HehadpreviouslyinvokedhisMirandarights.Heaskedthe 8  officerswhatthepenaltywasforthemurderforwhichhewas .~  underarrest,stating: Whatcansomeonegetforsomethinglike $t  this,thirtyyears?(Id.at982.)Theofficerrespondedthathehad j neverseenanyoneservemorethansevenandahalfyearsunless ` thepersonwasa massmurderer.Followingthisexchange,the V defendantconfessed.(Ibid.)TheCourtheldthatthisconversation L didnotconstituteaninterrogation: Clearly,notallconversation B betweenanofficerandasuspectconstitutesinterrogation.The 8 policemayspeaktoasuspectincustodyaslongasthespeech . wouldnotreasonablybeconstruedascallingforanincriminating $ response.(Id.at985.)7Xޢ݌ (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7XF0  0` (#(#2  c  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtfoundnointerrogationwhere  detectivestoldthedefendantthey knewhecommittedmurder  becausetheyfoundhisprintsatthescene.Thisbriefstatementwas  notinterrogationbecauseitwasnotphrasedasaquestion,anddid  notcallforanincriminatingresponse. Abriefstatementinforming   anin-custodydefendantabouttheevidencethatisagainsthimis ! notthefunctionalequivalentofinterrogationbecauseitisnotthe z" typeofstatementlikelytoelicitanincriminatingresponse.(People p#  v.Haley(2004)34Cal.4th283,302.)7XFs݌f$! (# (# Ќ  "6 "  6 $0  2  6  .3  0` (#(#  MirandaOnlyAppliestoInterrogationbyLawEnforcementOfficialsor R&!# TheirAgents.6 $Q݌H'"$` (#` (# Ќ  "7X"  7Xn0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Miranda: Bycustodialinterrogation,wemeanquestioninginitiated 4)$&  bylawenforcementofficers....(384U.S.at444(emphasisadded).)  7Xn݌**z%' (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7X%0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#   Mirandadoesnotapplytoquestioningbyundercoverofficers: A   policeofficerdisguisedasaninmatewasnotinterrogatingthe  defendantwhen(deceptively)engaginghiminconversationabout  themurderhewassuspectedof. ItisthepremiseofMirandathat  thedangerofcoercionresultsfromtheinteractionofcustodyand  officialinterrogation.(Illinoisv.Perkins(1990)496U.S.292,297.) ~   Wherethesuspectdoesnotknowthatheisspeakingtoa t  governmentagentthereisnoreasontoassumethepossibilitythat j  thesuspectmightfeelcoerced.(Id.at299.)InPerkins,the `  defendantwasservingaprisonsentenceonanunrelatedcrime V   whenthepolicesentinanundercoveragenttoinvestigatehimfor L  amurder.(Id.at295.)Sincemurderchargeshadnotbeenfiled, B  Perkinsrighttocounselhadnotyetattached,allowinginformation 8  fromhisunwarnedconfessiontobeusedagainsthim.(Notethat .~  the governmentmaynotuseanundercoveragenttocircumvent $t  theSixthAmendmentrighttocounselonceasuspecthasbeen j chargedwiththecrime,sothissituationmaybeanomalous.(Id. ` at299;cf.Massiahv.U.S.(1964)377U.S.201,207(where V defendantsincriminatingstatementtoaninformantcouldnotbe L usedattrialbecausetheconversationtookplacepostindictment B afterhisrighttocounselattached).)7X%R݌8 (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7X60  0` (#(#2  c  .3  0 ` (#` (#  StatementstoJailhouseVisitorsMirandadoesnotapply:7X6c݌$ (# (# Ќ  "\r"  \rj0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  1  )3  0 (# (#  Officersknowledgethatallowingthevisitor(defendants  wife)toseedefendantmightillicitanincriminatory  statementdoesnotrisetothelevelofcoercionora  psychologicalploythatMirandaprotectsagainst.(Arizonav.  Mauro(1987)481U.S.520,530.)\rj݌(#(# Ќ  "\r"  \rغ0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  2  )3  0 (# (#  ݀Defendantsvoluntaryconversationswithjailhousevisitor ! (grandmother)werenotthefunctionalequivalentof z" interrogation,evenwhendetectivestooktheinitiativeto p#  bringthevisitortoseethedefendantandrecordedthe f$! conversation.(Peoplev.Thornton(2007)41Cal.4th391,433.)\rغ݌\% "(#(# Ќ  "\r"  \rY0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  3  )3  0 (# (#  Wheredefendanthadrepeatedlyaskedtoseehisfather, H'"$ defendantsvoluntaryjailhouseconversationwithhisfather >(#% wasnotpoliceinterrogationsubjecttoMirandarequirements 4)$&  Peoplev.Mayfield(1997)14Cal.4th668,758.)\rY݌**z%'(#(# Ќ  "\r"  \r0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  4  )3  0 (# (#  Itisnotimproperforthepolicetograntdefendants   relativesspecialvisitationprivilegesontheunspokenhope  thatdefendantmightincriminatehimself.(Peoplev.Medina  (1990)51Cal.3d870,892.)\rĿ݌(#(# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  d  .3  0 ` (#` (#    Psychiatrists/Psychologists7X݌~  (# (# Ќ  "\r"  \r0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  1  )3  0 (# (#  Mirandaappliestoprosecutorspsychiatrist(seee.g.Peoplev. j  Ghent(1987)43Cal.3d739,750);\r݌` (#(# Ќ  "\r"  \r\0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  2  )3  0 (# (#  Mirandarequirementsapplytostatementstocourt L  appointedpsychiatristmadeduringcompetency B  examination.Intheabsenceofvalidwavier,suchstatements 8  canonlybeusedatcompetencyhearing.(Estellev.Smith .~  (1981)451U.S.454,466469.)InPenryv.Johnson(2001)532 $t  U.S.782,794795,afederalhabeascasedecidedunder j AEDPA,theCourtfoundthatthestatecourtdecision ` findingnoFifthAmendmentviolationwasnotcontraryto, V orunreasonableapplicationofEstellewherethedefendant L madehismentalhealthanissue,thedefendantsown B counselsoughtthepsychiatricexamination,thedefendant 8 firstelicitedthechallengedstatementduringexaminationof . hisownwitness,andthechallengedstatementsweremade $ duringacompetencyexaminationconductedduringaprior  unrelatedcaseandpriortothecommissionofthecharged  offenses.\r\݌(#(# Ќ  "\r"  \r0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  3  )3  0 (# (#  Mirandaappliestocivilinvestigator(Mathisv.UnitedStates  (1968)391U.S.1(IRAagents));\r/݌(#(# Ќ  "\r"  \r0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  4  )3  0 (# (#  [A]probationarydefendantsgeneralobligationtoappear ! andanswerquestionstruthfullydoesnotconvertotherwise z" voluntarystatementsintocompelledstatements.(Peoplev. p#  Macias(1997)16Cal.4th739,755(citingMinnesotav.Murphy f$! (1984)465U.S.420,431-435).)\r݌\% "(#(# Ќ  "+"  +2  F  .3  0    Exceptions +3݌H'"$(#(# Ќ  "6 "  6 0  2  1  .3  0` (#(#  BookingQuestion: 6 ݌,)|$&` (#` (# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  InPennsylvaniav.Muniz(1990)496U.S.582,afour-justiceplurality +h&( recognized aroutinebookingquestionexceptionwhichexempts ,^') fromMiranda'scoveragequestionstosecurethe biographical  datanecessarytocompletebookingorpretrialservices.(Id.at  601,plur.opn.ofBrennan,J.)However,thisexceptiondoesnot  includequestionsaskedduringbooking thataredesignedtoelicit  incriminatoryadmissions.(Id.at602,fn.14.)InMuniz,wherethe  defendanthadbeentriedandconvictedofDUI,theCourtheldthat ~  ananswertoaquestionregardingthedateofthedefendantssixth t  birthdaywasinadmissible(Id.at600),butanswerstoquestions j  elicitinghisname,address,height,weight,eyecolor,dateofbirth, `  andcurrentagewereadmissible(Id.at601602).7X݌V   (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  InPeoplev.Morris(1987)192Cal.App.3d380,ajaileraskeda B  defendantduringbooking, Whoareyouaccusedofkilling?,and 8  receivedtheanswer, Ikilledmysister-in-law.(Id.atp.388.)The .~  jailerinsistedhisquestionwas solelyforthepurposeofjail $t  securityandnottoelicitinformationfromdefendantthatmightbe j usedagainsthim.(Id.)TheCourtinMorrisobserved, Thefocus ` ofouranalysisisnotwhatthepolicemaylawfullyaskacriminal V suspecttoensurejailsecurity.Thepolicemayaskwhateverthe L needsofjailsecuritydictate.However,whenthepoliceknowor B shouldknowthatsuchaninquiryisreasonablylikelytoelicitan 8 incriminatingresponsefromthesuspect,thesuspectsresponses . arenotadmissibleagainsthiminasubsequentcriminalproceeding $ unlesstheinitialinquiryhasbeenprecededbyMiranda  admonishments.(Id.at389-390.)7X.݌ (# (# Ќ  "6 "  6 0  2  2  .3  0` (#(#  PublicSafety: 6 ݌` (#` (# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Policeofficersmayaskincriminatoryquestionstoasuspectwhen  publicsafetyisatrisk.(NewYorkv.Quarles(1984)467U.S.649,657   (officeraskedanapprehendedrapesuspect whereisthegun? ! afterwitnessessawthesuspectdiscardtheguninagrocerystore, z" placingthepublicindangerandcreatingimmediatenecessityof p#  findingthegun).7X݌f$! (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7XT0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  InUnitedStatesv.Carrillo(9thCir.1994)16F.3d1046,theNinth R&!# Circuitheldthatthepublicsafetyexceptionappliedtoapresearch H'"$ questionregardingwhetheradetaineewasinpossessionofdrugs >(#% orneedles.(16F.3dat1049.)ButinPeoplev.Cressy(1996)47 4)$& Cal.App.4th981,thenCourtofAppealJusticeCorriganexplained **z%' thatthepublicsafetyquestions mustbenarrowlytailoredto  +p&( preventpotentialharmand [q]uestionsaboutneedlesorother ,f') potentiallycontaminatedsharpobjectswouldbepermissible.(47  Cal.App.4that989.)But, [q]uestionsaboutdrugsingeneral,most  firearmsorsimilarkindsofseizable,butnotimmediately  dangerous,itemswouldfalloutsidethisnarrowexception.(Id.)In  Peoplev.Ross(2008)162Cal.App.4th1184,1187,1191,theCourtdid  notreachanyconclusionabouttheproprietyofquestionsabout ~  possessionofdrugs.Inthatcase,thepoliceofficerfoundaknifebut t  nodrugs.(Id.at1187.)Onappeal,thedefendantonlychallenged j  thepoliceofficersquestionaboutweapons: [defendant]contends `  thatshehadaFifthAmendmentrightnottodiscloseher V   possessionoftheknife(Id.at1191).TheCourtofAppeal,citing L  thepublicsafetyexceptiontoMiranda,heldonlythatthepolice B  officer properlyinquiredwhethershepossessedanyweapons. 8  (Ibid.)ThecourtinRosssaidnothingaboutproprietyofquestions .~  aboutdrugs.7XT݌$t  (# (# Ќ  "6 "  6 0  2  3  .3  0` (#(#  CaliforniasRescueDoctrine: Therescuedoctrineisanalogousto(butnot ` subsumedwithin)thepublicsafetyexception.Thisdoctrineis V independentfromthepublicsafetyexceptionbecauseitpredatesQuarles L andhasitsowntest.(Peoplev.Davis(2009)46Cal.4th539,592593.)Also, B thisdoctrineappliesspecificallyinkidnappingormissingpersoncases, 8  [u]ndercircumstancesofextremeemergencywherethepossibilityof . savingthelifeofamissingvictimexists,noncoercivequestionsmaybe $ askedofamaterialwitnessincustodyeventhoughanswerstothe  questionsmayincriminatethewitness.(Id.at594.)InDavis,suspect  RichardAllenDaviswasinpolicecustodyforkidnappingPollyKlass,  andhadinvokedhisMirandarights.(Id.at591.)Fourdaysafterinvocation  ofhisrighttoremainsilentandrequestforcounsel,adetectivere  inititatedcontactedwithDavisinjail,askinghimtodisclosewherePollys  bodywas.(Id.)TheCourtruledthattheadmissionandevidencethat   followedwereadmissibleundertherescuedoctrine,despitethefactthat ! Pollyhadbeenmissingfor64days,andinpastcasesthedoctrinewas z" appliedwhenthevictimhadbeenmissingforamuchshortertime.(Id.at p#  594.) [T]helengthoftimeakidnapvictimhasbeenmissingisnot,by f$! itself,dispositiveofwhetherarescueisstillreasonablypossible.(Id.)6 ݌\% "` (#` (# Ќ  &  "+"  +ڿ2  G  .3  0    FormofMirandaWarnings+ڿ݌H'"$(#(# Ќ  "6 "  6 0  2  1  .3  0` (#(#  ElementsofWarnings(seeMiranda,386U.S.at479.)6 ݌0)$&` (#` (# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  thathehastherighttoremainsilent'H'7X݌+h&( (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  thatanythinghesayscanbeusedagainsthiminacourtoflaw,7X!݌ (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7X-0  0` (#(#2  c  .3  0 ` (#` (#  thathehastherighttothepresenceofanattorney,and7X-Z݌ (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7X`0  0` (#(#2  d  .3  0 ` (#` (#  thatifhecannotaffordanattorneyonewillbeappointedforhim  priortoanyquestioningifhesodesires.7X`݌~  (# (# Ќ  "6 "  6 0  2  2  .3  0` (#(#  WarningsNeedNotbeVerbatimasStatedinMiranda.6 ݌j ` (#` (# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Statecourt erredinholdingthatthewarningswereinadequate V   simplybecauseoftheorderinwhichtheyweregiven.(California L  v.Prysock(1981)453U.S.355,361.)7X݌B  (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7X0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheCourtdeemedtheMirandaadviceadequatewheretheMiranda .~  formstated,inpart,thatanattorney willbeappointedforyou,if $t  youwish,ifandwhenyougotocourt.(Duckworthv.Eagan(1989) j 492U.S.195,198,201.)TheCourtreasonedthattheadvice ` (1)accuratelydescribedtheprocedureinthatstate,(2)Miranda V doesnotrequirethatthejailhaveanattorneyavailableoncallto L adviseprisonersand,thus,Mirandaonlyrequiresthatquestioning B ceaseunlessthesuspectwaiveshisrights.(Id.at204.)7X݌8 (# (# Ќ  "7X"  7Xl0  0` (#(#2  c  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ThefourwarningsMirandarequiresareinvariable,butthisCourt $ hasnotdictatedthewordsinwhichtheessentialinformationmust  beconveyed.(Floridav.Powell(2010)130S.Ct.1195,1204.)InPowell,  thesuspectwasadvised: Youhavetherighttoremainsilent.If  yougiveuptherighttoremainsilent,anythingyousaycanbe  usedagainstyouincourt.Youhavetherighttotalktoalawyerbefore  answeringanyofourquestions.Ifyoucannotaffordtohirealawyer,one  willbeappointedforyouwithoutcostandbeforeanyquestioning.You   havetherighttouseanyoftheserightsatanytimeyouwant ! duringthisinterview.(130S.Ct.at1200(emphasisadded).) v" RelyingonDuckworth,theCourtinPowell,foundtheadvisements l#  sufficient,concludingthatthesuspectwouldnotunderstandthe b$! advicetomeanthatthehecouldconsultanattorneybeforeeach X% " questionbutthathewouldbealonewiththeinterrogatorswhen N&!# actuallyansweringthequestions.(Id.at1205.) Incontext...the D'"$ termbeforemerelyconveyedwhenPowell'srighttoanattorney :(#% becameeffective-namely,beforeheansweredanyquestionsatall. 0)$& Nothinginthewordsusedindicatedthatcounsel'spresencewould &*v%' berestrictedafterthequestioningcommenced.(Ibid.)7Xl݌+l&( (# (# Ќ  "+"  +2  H  .3  0    InvocationorWaiverofRights:DistinctInquiries. AsexplainedinBerghuisv.  Thompkins(2010)130S.Ct.2250,theinvocationofMirandarightsisadistinct  inquiryfromthequestionofwhethertherewasavalidwaiverofrights.In  Berghuis,thedefendantarguedseparatelythathisstatementswereinadmissible  becauseheactuallyinvokedhisrighttoremainsilent(130S.Ct.at2259)and  becauseanyhedidnotvoluntarilywaivehisrighttoremainsilent(Id.at2260 ~  2261.)Thesearedistinctquestions: Evenabsenttheaccused'sinvocationofthe t  righttoremainsilent,theaccusedsstatementduringacustodialinterrogationis j  inadmissibleattrialunlesstheprosecutioncanestablishthattheaccusedinfact `  knowinglyandvoluntarilywaived[Miranda]rightswhenmakingthe V   statement.(Id.at2260(citingNorthCarolinav.Butler(1979)441U.S.369,373).)+(݌L (#(# Ќ  "+"  +6 2  I  .3  0    Invocation +6 c ݌8 (#(# Ќ  "6  "  6  0  2  1  .3  0` (#(#  RighttoCounsel.6  < ݌l ` (#` (# Ќ  "7X "  7X 0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Onceasuspecthasrequestedcounsel,interrogationmuststopuntil P anattorneyisprovided,unlessthesuspecthimselfinitiatesfurther F communication.(SeeEdwardsv.Arizona(1981)451U.S.477,484 < 485.)Edwardsrulenotviolatedwheresuspectinitiatesthefurther 2 conversation.(Oregonv.Bradshaw(1983)462U.S.1039,104546 ( (plurality).)7X . ݌ (# (# Ќ  "7X "  7X 0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  InordertoreceiveEdwardsprotection,invocationoftherightto   counselmustbeunambiguous,orsufficientlyclearthata  reasonableofficerunderthecircumstanceswouldunderstandthat  thesuspectisrequestinganattorney.(Davisv.U.S.(1994)512U.S.  452,459.)Ifasuspectsrequesttohavecounselpresentis  ambiguousorequivocal,thepolicearenotrequiredtostop  questioningoraskclarifyingquestions.(Davis,supra512U.S.452 ~  at459.)7X  ݌t! (# (# Ќ  "\r "  \r!0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  1  )3  0 (# (#  MaybeIshouldtalktoaLawyernoinvocation.(Id.at `#  455,459)\r!N݌V$!(#(# Ќ  "\r "  \r0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  2  )3  0 (# (#  Ithinkit'dprobablybeagoodideaformetogetan B&!# attorneynoinvocation(Peoplev.Bacon(2010)50Cal.4th 8'"$ 1082,1105.)\r݌.(~#%(#(# Ќ  "\r "  \rE0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  3  )3  0 (# (#   ifforanythingyouguysaregoingtochargemeIwantto *j%'  talktoapublicdefendertoo,foranylittlethingno +`&( invocation.(Peoplev.Gonzalez(2005)34Cal.4th1111,1116,  11251127.)\rEr݌(#(#   "7X "  7Xk0  0` (#(#2  c  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheEdwardsPresumption:Iffurthercontactisinitiatedbypolice  afterthesuspecthasinvokedhisrighttohavecounselpresent,itis  presumedthatanysubsequentwaiverisinvoluntary.(Edwards, ~  451U.S.at485;Arizonav.Roberson(1988)486U.S.675,681.)7Xk݌t  (# (# Ќ  "7X "  7X0  0` (#(#2  d  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Marylandv.Shatzers14dayShelfLifeofEdwardsPresumption.In `  2010,theCourtheldthattheEdwardspresumptiondoesnotapply V   whentherehasbeena14daybreakincustody.(Marylandv.Shatzer L  (2010)___U.S.___,130S.Ct.1213,1223.)InShatzer,thedefendant B  hadbeeninprisoncustodyonanunrelatedoffense.Herefusedto 8  talktoinvestigatorswithoutanattorneypresent.Overtwoyears .~  later,anotherpoliceofficerquestionedthedefendantaboutthe $t  sameeventsaboutwhichthedefendanthadpreviouslyinvoked j Miranda.UndertheoldEdwardsrule,thedefendantswaiverof ` Mirandarightswouldbepresumedtobeinvoluntarybecausethe V conversationwasatthebehestoflawenforcement.However,the L Courtfashionedanewrule,holdingthatwhentherehasbeena B 14-daybreakincustody,theEdwardspresumptionends.Inthis 8 instance,a breakincustodyoftwoandahalfyearshadoccurred, . despitethefactthatthedefendantremainedinprisoncustodyon $ anunrelatedoffensetheentiretime.(Ibid.at12171219.)7X݌ (# (# Ќ  "6  "  6 +0  2  2  .3  0` (#(#  RighttoRemainSilent:TheSupremeCourtrecentlyheldthat,likethe  requirementofanunequivocalinvocationoftherighttocounsel(Davis,  512U.S.at459),theinvocationoftherighttoremainsilentmustalsobe  unambiguous_._Ԁ(Berghuisv.Thompkins,supra,130S.Ct.2250at2260.)  Requiringasuspecttounambiguouslyasserthisrighttoremainsilentis   designedtoremovetheburdenonlawenforcementinherentinhavingto !  guessatwhetherasuspectisinvokinghisMirandarightsornot.(Id.)In z" Berghuis,thedefendantdidnotunambiguouslyinvokehisrighttoremain p#  silent bynotsayinganythingforasufficientperiodoftime.(Id.at2259 f$! 2260.)6 +X݌\% "` (#` (# Ќ  "+ "  +گ#2  J  .3  0    WaiverofMirandaRights+گ##݌H'"$(#(# Ќ  "6  "  6 $0  2  1  .3  0` (#(#  AsuspectmaywaivehisMirandarightssolongashiswaiverismade ,)|$& voluntarily,knowingly,andintelligently.(Miranda,384U.S.at444.)The "*r%' Court reassert[ed]the highstandardsofproofforthewaiverof +h&( constitutionalrights.(Id.at475(citingJohnsonv.Zerbst(1938)304U.S. ,^') 458,464(definingwaiveras intentionalrelinquishmentorabandonment  ofaknownrightorprivilege)).)6 $$݌` (#` (# Ќ  "6  "  6 '0  2  2  .3  0` (#(#  A heavyburdenisontheprosecutiontoestablishthatthedefendant  knowinglyandintelligentlywaivedhisorherrights.(Id.at475.)6 ''݌` (#` (# Ќ  "6  "  6 )0  2  3  .3  0` (#(#  Awaiverisvalidif,undera totalityofcircumstancestest,thecourt t  finds bothanuncoercedchoiceandtherequisitelevelof j  comprehension.(Moranv.Burbine(1986)475U.S.412,421.)Theinquiry `  intothefactsandcircumstancesofthecasemayincludethe background, V   experience,andconductoftheaccused.(Zerbst,304U.S.458at464.)The L  statesburdentoestablishwaiverisbyapreponderanceoftheevidence. B  (Berghuisv.Thompkins(2010)130S.Ct.2250,2261.) [T]herelinquishment 8  oftherightmusthavebeenvoluntaryinthesensethatitwastheproduct .~  ofafreeanddeliberatechoiceratherthanintimidation,coercion,or $t  deception.(Burbine,supra,475U.S.412at421.) [T]hewaivermusthave j beenmadewithafullawarenessofboththenatureoftherightbeing ` abandonedandtheconsequencesofthedecisiontoabandonit.(Id.)6 )L)݌V` (#` (# Ќ  "6  "  6 .0  2  4  .3  0` (#(#  Expressv.ImpliedWaiver 6 ..݌B` (#` (# Ќ  "7X "  7X{/0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Express: Anexpresswrittenororalstatementofwaiveroftheright . toremainsilentoroftherighttocounselisusuallystrongproofof $ thevalidityofthatwaiver,butisnotinevitablyeithernecessaryor  sufficienttoestablishwaiver.Thequestionisnotoneofform,but  ratherwhetherthedefendantinfactknowinglyandvoluntarily  waivedtherightsdelineatedintheMirandacase.(NorthCarolinav.  Butler(1979)441U.S.369,373.)7X{//݌ (# (# Ќ  "7X "  7X20  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Implied: Insomecaseswaivercanbeclearlyinferredfromthe   actionsandwordsofthepersonbeinginterrogated.(Id.at374) ! TheMirandacourtheld avalidwaiverwillnotbepresumed z" simplyfromthesilenceoftheaccusedafterwarningsaregiven..... p#  (Miranda,384U.S.436at475),whileButlerclarifiedthatsilencecan f$! constitutewaiverwhencoupledwithanunderstandingofthe \% " rightsandacourseofconductindicatingwaiver.(Butler,441U.S. R&!# 369at373.)ThegivingofproperMirandawarningscoupledwithan H'"$ uncoercedstatement,isinsufficienttoestablishawaiverofMiranda >(#% rights.(Berghuis,130S.Ct.at2261.)Theprosecutionmustalsoshow 4)$&  thatthesuspectunderstoodhisorherrights.(Id.)7X22݌**z%' (# (# Ќ  "7X "  7X70  0` (#(#2  c  .3  0 ` (#` (#  InBerghuis,thecourtrecentlyfoundanimplicitandvalidwaiverof   Mirandawhenasuspectmadeonlyafewverbalresponsesand  occasionallynoddedhisheadoverthecourseofathreehour  interrogation.(Thompkins,supra,130S.Ct.2250at2257.)TheCourt  heldthesuspect engagedinacourseofconductindicating  waiverbynotclearlyinvokingMiranda,notremainingcompletely ~  silent,andbynotofferinganyevidencethathedidnotunderstand t  thewrittencopyofhisMirandarightsprovidedtohimbyofficers. j  (Id.at2262.) 7X77݌`  (# (# Ќ  "+ "  +ڌ;2  K  .3  0    ConsequencesofMirandaViolation+ڌ;;݌L (#(# Ќ  "6  "  6 <0  2  1  .3  0` (#(#  InadmissibleinCaseinChief.StatementselicitedinviolationofMiranda 4  areinadmissibleintheprosecution'scase-in-chief.(SeeStansburyv. *z  California(1994)511U.S.318,322(percuriam).)6 <<݌ p ` (#` (# Ќ  "6  "  6 ^>0  2  2  .3  0` (#(#  MaybeUsedtoImpeachment:6 ^>>݌ \` (#` (# Ќ  "7X "  7XW?0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  AstatementtakeninviolationofMirandamaynotbeadmissible H againstadefendantintheprosecutionscaseinchief,butthe > statementcanbeusedtoimpeachthedefendantifhechoosesto 4 testify.ThisexceptionwasdesignedtopreventMirandafrombeing * usedashieldwhencommittingperjury.(Harrisv.NewYork(1971)   401U.S.222,225;Michiganv.Harvey(1990)494U.S.344346.)7XW??݌ (# (# Ќ  "7X "  7XDB0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Ifasuspect,aftergivenproperMirandawarnings,optstoexercise  hisrighttoremainsilent, itwouldbefundamentallyunfairanda  deprivationofdueprocesstoallowthearrestedperson'ssilenceto  beusedtoimpeachanexplanationsubsequentlyofferedattrial.  Doylev.Ohio(1976)426U.S.610,618.)7XDBqB݌  (# (# Ќ  "6  "  6 D0  2  3  .3  0` (#(#  PhysicalFruitsNotSuppressed:failuretogiveMirandawarningsdoesnot v" requiresuppressionofphysicalfruitsofunwarnedvoluntarystatements. l#  (UnitedStatesv.Patane(2004)542U.S.630,636637.)6 DD݌b$!` (#` (# Ќ  "6  "  6 F0  2  4  .3  0` (#(#  SubsequentStatements:Awarnedsubsequentstatementmadeafteran N&!# unwarnedstatementmaybeadmissible,althoughtheunwarned D'"$ statementmustbesuppressed.6 FF݌:(#%` (#` (# Ќ  "7X "  7XKH0  0` (#(#2  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  InOregonv.Elstad(1985)470U.S.298,300,theCourtrejected &*v%' applicationoftheWongSunv.UnitedStates(1963)371U.S.471, +l&( fruitofthepoisonoustreedoctrineinanalyzingtheadmissibility ,b') ofsubsequentwarnedstatementsmadeafterunwarnedstatements.  Subsequentstatementsareanalyzedsolelyonthebasisofwhether  theyareknowingandvoluntary.(470U.S.at309.) [A]suspect  whohasoncerespondedtounwarnedyetuncoercivequestioning  isnottherebydisabledfromwaivinghisrightsandconfessingafter  hehasbeengiventherequisiteMirandawarnings.(470U.S.at ~  318.)7XKHxH݌t  (# (# Ќ  "7X "  7XTL0  0` (#(#2  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Missouriv.Seibert(2004)542U.S.600:twostepinterrogationscan `  violateMiranda.7XTLL݌V   (# (# Ќ  "\r "  \rM0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  1  )3  0 (# (#  InSeibert,theofficersintentionallyinterrogatedthesuspect B  withoutMirandawarnings.Afterthesuspectconfessed,the 8  officersMirandizedhim,obtainedawaiver,andthe .~  defendantagainconfessed.AmajorityoftheCourtfound $t  thisprocesstoviolateMiranda.\rMM݌j(#(# Ќ  "\r "  \r6P0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  2  )3  0 (# (#  AlthoughtheSupremeCourtwasfracturedonthispoint, V mostlowercourtsreadSeiberttoholdthatthesecond L statementisinadmissibleunderMirandaonlyiftherewasa B deliberateintenttoevadetheMirandarequirementsin 8 connectionwiththefirststatement. (Seee.g.Peoplev.Rios . (2009)179Cal.App.4th491,505( Althoughtheplurality $ wouldconsideralltwo-stageinterrogationseligiblefora  Seibertinquiry,JusticeKennedy'sopinionnarrowedthe  Seibertexceptiontothosecasesinvolvingdeliberateuseof  thetwo-stepproceduretoweakenMiranda'sprotections);  Peoplev.Camino(2010)188Cal.App.4th1359,1369,pet.for  rev.pendinginNo.S187857;UnitedStatesv.Williams(9th  Cir.2006)435F.3d1148,1157;butseeUnitedStatesv.   Carrizales-Toledo(10thCir.2006)454F.3d1142;seealso ! Weisselberg,MourningMiranda,96Cal.L.Rev.1519,1549-52 z" (2008)(collectingcases).)\r6PcP݌p# (#(# Ќ  "\r "  \r,V0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  3  )3  0 (# (#  Standardofreviewforquestionofwhethertwostep \% " interrogationwasdeliberate.(Camino,188Cal.App.4that R&!# 13711372(factualinquirysubjectto substantialevidence H'"$ test).)\r,VYV݌>(#%(#(# Ќ  "+ "  +0X2  L  .3  0    ShowingPrejudice: AdmissionofevidenceinviolationofMirandaisreversible **z%' unlesstheprosecutioncanshowtheerrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonable  +p&( doubt.(Peoplev.Samayoa(1997)15Cal.4th795,831;Peoplev.Johnson(1993)6 ,f') Cal.4th1,33(citingArizonav.Fulminante(1991)499U.S.279,309andChapmanv.  California(1967)386U.S.18,24).)+0X]X݌(#(# Ќ  "+ "  +Z2  M  .3  0    FederalHabeasReviewAvailable. InStonev.Powell(1976)428U.S.465,the  CourtfederalhabeasreviewofFourthAmendmentclaimsisnotavailableifthe  defendanthadafullandfairchancetolitigatetheclaiminstatecourt. Stone's ~  restrictionontheexerciseoffederalhabeasjurisdictiondoesnotextendtoastate t  prisoner'sclaimthathisconvictionrestsonstatementsobtainedinviolationof j  thesafeguardsmandatedbyMirandav.Arizona(1966)384U.S.436.(Withrowv. `  Williams(1993)507U.S.680,682683.) +ZZ݌V  (#(# Ќ