Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

In re Paul P

170 Cal.App.3d 397 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re Paul P

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Fonseca

    36 Cal.App.4th 631 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 42 times
    Detailing the rationale for a durable and lengthy Fifth Amendment right

    There is some uncertainty as to when the privilege ends. Without further discussion, the appellate court in In re Paul P. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 397 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 51], citing People v. Webster (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 739, 743 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 260], stated at page 401, in pure dictum, that "Fifth Amendment principles apply even though the statements are made to state agents in a postconviction setting." In conclusory language, People v. Frohner (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 94 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 153], and People v. Sierra (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 649 [ 256 P.2d 577], suggest that conviction terminates the privilege.

  2. In re Harold S

    731 A.2d 265 (R.I. 1999)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that, where school officials are not acting as agents of the police, Miranda warnings are not required, even if a juvenile or criminal prosecution results from statements given during the course of the interview

    The weight of authority is that Miranda warnings are necessary only when a defendant is subject to questioning by law-enforcement officials, their agents, and agents of the court while the suspect is in official custody. See In the Matter of Paul P., 216 Cal.Rptr. 51 (Ct.App. 1995);see also State v. Tinkham, 719 A.2d 580 (N.H. 1998). Here, because the principal was not acting as an agent of the police when he questioned respondent and because respondent was not subjected to a custodial interrogation by law-enforcement authorities, it was unnecessary to inform respondent of his rights prior to this questioning.

  3. In re I.F.

    20 Cal.App.5th 735 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 29 times
    Finding erroneous admission of minor's multiple custodial statements were prejudicial where "prosecutor emphasized the inconsistencies in [minor's] statements in closing argument" and the "juvenile court was clearly struck by the inconsistencies in [his] statements"

    Although B.F. participated in the interview pursuant to an agreement with law enforcement, we likewise accept, if only for the sake of argument, the People's contention that B.F. was not acting as an agent of the police. (In re Paul P. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 397, 401, 216 Cal.Rptr. 51 [" Miranda is applicable only to questioning by law enforcement officials, their agents and agents of the court while the suspect is in official custody"].) Where we part company with the People is in their suggestion that the second part of the fourth interview was primarily a private conversation, rather than a police dominated interrogation.

  4. People v. Vasquez

    B265987 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2017)

    Miranda is only applicable while the suspect is in official custody; "[n]ongovernmental security employees that act without police cooperation have been regarded as private citizens unaffected by Miranda." (In re Deborah C. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 125, 131; In re Paul P. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 397, 401.) Nor does the record show that Officer Lopez conducted a custodial interrogation.