Confessions and admissions - Revision history

Sysop at 20:58, 24 August 2025

2025-08-24T20:58:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 24 August 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539

	Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.		Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

Sysop: /* Handcuffs */

2024-03-24T23:10:21Z

Handcuffs

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:10, 24 March 2024
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Defendant argued at trial that as a matter of law police officers must provide Miranda warnings before interrogating a handcuffed suspect. But, as discussed above, no one factor is controlling and courts must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter. (See also United States v. Bautista (9th Cir.1982) 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (Bautista ) [rejecting argument defendants “automatically” arrested when handcuffed].) For example, brief handcuffing of a detainee would look less like a formal arrest if the interviewing officer informed the detainee the handcuffs were temporary and solely for safety purposes, officers considered the detainee only a witness in the investigation and advised the detainee he or she could decline to answer their questions. (See United States v. Salvo (6th Cir.1998) 133 F.3d 943, 951 [informing suspect he was not under arrest, was free to leave and would not be arrested after the interview was “an important factor in finding that the suspect was not in custody”].) But these mitigating facts are absent in the present case. (People v. Pilster (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404.)		Defendant argued at trial that as a matter of law police officers must provide Miranda warnings before interrogating a handcuffed suspect. But, as discussed above, no one factor is controlling and courts must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter. (See also United States v. Bautista (9th Cir.1982) 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (Bautista ) [rejecting argument defendants “automatically” arrested when handcuffed].) For example, brief handcuffing of a detainee would look less like a formal arrest if the interviewing officer informed the detainee the handcuffs were temporary and solely for safety purposes, officers considered the detainee only a witness in the investigation and advised the detainee he or she could decline to answer their questions. (See United States v. Salvo (6th Cir.1998) 133 F.3d 943, 951 [informing suspect he was not under arrest, was free to leave and would not be arrested after the interview was “an important factor in finding that the suspect was not in custody”].) But these mitigating facts are absent in the present case. (People v. Pilster (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404.)

			Miranda warnings are not required during the course of a brief detention unless the suspect is placed under restraints normally associated with a formal arrest. When this occurs, Miranda warnings are required because the suspect understands the detention is not likely to be “temporary and brief” and therefore is “completely at the mercy of the police.” (Berkemer, supra, 468 U.S. pp. 437–438, 104 S.Ct. 3138.) Handcuffing conveys this message because it *1405 is a distinguishing feature of a formal arrest. (Dunaway v. New York (1979) 442 U.S. 200, 215, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 [handcuffs considered among the “trappings of a technical formal arrest”]; United States v. Newton (2d Cir.2004) 369 F.3d 659, 676 (Newton ) [handcuffing “recognized as a hallmark of a formal arrest”]; United States v. Maguire (1st Cir.2004) 359 F.3d 71, 79 [handcuffs considered “ ‘one of the most recognizable indicia of traditional arrest’ ”]; United States v. Glenna (7th Cir.1989) 878 F.2d 967, 972 [“handcuffs are restraints on freedom of movement normally associated with arrest”].) (People v. Pilster (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404–1405.)

	Doyle error		Doyle error

Sysop: /* Pre-arrest questioning */

2024-03-24T23:08:32Z

Pre-arrest questioning

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:08, 24 March 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	People v. Forster (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1746		People v. Forster (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1746

			===Handcuffs===

			Defendant argued at trial that as a matter of law police officers must provide Miranda warnings before interrogating a handcuffed suspect. But, as discussed above, no one factor is controlling and courts must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter. (See also United States v. Bautista (9th Cir.1982) 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (Bautista ) [rejecting argument defendants “automatically” arrested when handcuffed].) For example, brief handcuffing of a detainee would look less like a formal arrest if the interviewing officer informed the detainee the handcuffs were temporary and solely for safety purposes, officers considered the detainee only a witness in the investigation and advised the detainee he or she could decline to answer their questions. (See United States v. Salvo (6th Cir.1998) 133 F.3d 943, 951 [informing suspect he was not under arrest, was free to leave and would not be arrested after the interview was “an important factor in finding that the suspect was not in custody”].) But these mitigating facts are absent in the present case. (People v. Pilster (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404.)

	Doyle error		Doyle error

Sysop at 04:20, 17 July 2021

2021-07-17T04:20:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:20, 17 July 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.		Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

			People v. Ceccone (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 886

	==Pre-arrest questioning==		==Pre-arrest questioning==

Sysop at 03:46, 5 September 2019

2019-09-05T03:46:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 5 September 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.		Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.



			==Pre-arrest questioning==

			Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420

			People v. Forster (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1746


			Doyle error

			''Doyle v. Ohio'' (1976) 426 U.S. 610

Sysop: Created page with "Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. {| class="wikitable" !colspan="4"|Not Attenuated |- ! Case ! Time Lapse ! Intervening Factors ! Misconduct |- |''Wong Sun v United S..."

2014-04-11T10:00:38Z

Created page with "Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. {| class="wikitable" !colspan="4"|Not Attenuated |- ! Case ! Time Lapse ! Intervening Factors ! Misconduct |- |''Wong Sun v United S..."

New page

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan="4"|Not Attenuated
|-
! Case
! Time Lapse
! Intervening Factors
! Misconduct
|-
|''Wong Sun v United States'' (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 486 [83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441] (confession of Toy)
| Minutes
| None
| Arrest without probable cause
|-
| ''Brown v Illinois'' (1975) 422 U.S. 590, 604-605 [95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416]
| Approximately 2 hours
| Miranda
| Arrest without probable cause and for purpose of questioning
|-
|''Dunaway v New York'' (1979) 442 U.S. 200, 218-219 [99 S.Ct 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824]
| Approximately 2 hours
| Miranda
| Arrest without probable cause and for purpose of questioning
|-
|''Taylor v Alabama'' (1982) 457 U.S. 687, 690-691 [102 S.Ct 2664, 73 L.Ed.2d 314]
| 6 hours
| 3 Miranda warnings; confession followed conversation with friends; arrest warrant filed before confession
| Same
|-
|''People v Boyer'' (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 269 [256 Cal.Rptr. 96]
| Less than 4 hours
| Miranda admonition; "consent" to accompany officers; defendant volunteered "I can't live with it"
|Same; consent not free; statement after defendant told repeatedly he could not live with his guilt
|-
|''People v Gonzalez'' (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 432, 446-447 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 272] (Mac's Liquor confession)
| 3½–5½ hours
| Miranda admonition
| Lack of probable cause; defendant arrested to see what might turn up
|-
|''Lozoya v Superior Court'' (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1332, 1341-1346 [235 Cal.Rptr. 77]
| 4 days
| Prior unattenuated admissions; possibly, confrontation with codefendant's statement
| Same; egregious questioning
|-
|''People v Jenkins'' (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1178 [19 Cal.Rptr.3d 386]
| None
| Miranda admonition
| Custodial traffic arrest for purpose of questioning about felony; over 16-hour illegal detention
|-
|''People v Medina'' (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 171 [1 Cal.Rptr.3d 546]
| None
| Voluntary answer to question
| Questioning in conjunction with illegal pat-down
|-
!colspan="4"|Attentuated
|-
! Case
! Time Lapse
! Intervening Factors
! Misconduct
|-
|''Wong Sun v United States'' (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 491 [83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441] (confession of Wong Sun)
| Several days
| Arraignment, O.R., voluntary return to give statement
| Arrest without probable cause
|-
|''Rawlings v Kentucky'' (1980) 448 U.S. 98, 107 [100 S.Ct 2556, 65 L.Ed. 2d 633]
| 45 minutes
| Miranda admonition; spontaneous reaction to discovery of drugs in another's purse
| Detention while search warrant sought
|-
|''People v Beardslee'' (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 109 [279 Cal.Rptr. 276]
| 11 years
| Miranda admonition; police illegality occurred in another state; exemplary conduct by local police to whom defendant gave statement
| Police perjury
|-
|''People v Gonzalez'' (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 432, 447 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 272] (Paul's Kitchen confession)
| 1 day
| Miranda; questioning by officers from wholly unrelated agency
| Lack of probable cause, but arresting officers knew nothing about crime involved in confession
|-
|''People v De Juan'' (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1123-1124 [217 Cal.Rptr. 642]
| Probably an hour or less
| Miranda admonition; defendant told he was not under arrest; defendant said he wanted to clear matter up
| Police allowed private investigators to unlawfully arrest and transport defendant; threats by investigators
|-
|''People v Jenkins'' (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1179 [19 Cal.Rptr.3d 386]
| 3 days
| Out-of-custody defendant voluntarily returned to station; Miranda rights reread
| Illegal detention for over 16 hours
|-
|}