Opinion ID: 2632408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Readvise Defendant of Miranda Rights

Text: Defendant further faults Detective Kimura for failing to readvise him of his Fifth Amendment rights when the second interview began. This court repeatedly has held that a Miranda readvisement is not necessary before a custodial interrogation is resumed, so long as a proper warning has been given, and the subsequent interrogation is `reasonably contemporaneous' with the prior knowing and intelligent waiver. ( People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140,170, 284 Cal.Rptr. 511, 814 P.2d 290 ( Mickle ); People v. Braeseke (1979) 25 Cal.3d 691, 701-702, 159 Cal.Rptr. 684, 602 P.2d 384, vacated and cause remanded (1980) 446 U.S. 932, 100 S.Ct. 2147, 64 L.Ed.2d 784, reaffd. (1980) 28 Cal.3d 86, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149.) We have established several factors to determine whether readvisement is necessary prior to a subsequent interrogation held after an earlier valid Miranda waiver: 1) the amount of time that has passed since the initial waiver; 2) any change in the identity of the interrogator or location of the interrogation; 3) an official reminder of the prior advisement; 4) the suspect's sophistication or past experience with law enforcement; and 5) further indicia that defendant subjectively understands and waives his rights. ( Mickle, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 170, 284 Cal.Rptr. 511, 814 P.2d 290.) In Mickle, we found that readvisement was unnecessary when 36 hours had elapsed between interrogations, because the defendant was still in custody, was interviewed by the same interrogators, was reminded of his prior waiver, was familiar with the justice system, and there was nothing to indicate he was mentally impaired or otherwise incapable of remembering the prior advisement. ( Id. at p. 171, 284 Cal.Rptr. 511, 814 P.2d 290.) In this case, the second interrogation occurred less than 12 hours after the first interrogation ended. Defendant remained in custody in the interim. The same officers conducted the interrogation, in the same office, and asked defendant whether he remembered the Miranda warnings, or if he would like to hear them again. Defendant declined, stating that he remembered the advisements and still wished to speak with the officers. There is no indication on the record that the officers should have suspected that defendant was mentally impaired or otherwise incapable of remembering the prior advisement. Finally, because defendant had been incarcerated in the California Youth Authority and arrested for domestic violence in 1990, defendant was quite familiar with the criminal justice system. Under these circumstances Detective Kimura was not required to readvise defendant of his Miranda rights.