In People v. Farris (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 51, Farris was on parole following a burglary conviction. An officer suspected Farris of being involved in a nighttime burglary in which jewelry had been taken. The officer, Farris' parole agent, and another parole agent went to defendant's home where they told him he was a suspect and that they were going to search his bedroom. (Id. at p. 54.) The officers found jewelry that resembled the items taken during the burglary and asked Farris who owned the jewelry. Farris responded that the jewelry belonged to him, and he had obtained the jewelry from a jewelry store. (Ibid.) Farris was not given any Miranda warnings before the officers began questioning him at his home. The Farris court noted that for the purposes of Miranda, a person is in custody if a reasonable person is led to believe his movement has been restricted. (Farris, supra, 120 Cal.App.3d at p. 56.) As a parolee, Farris had consented to the search of his residence and of his person, and his parole officer could detain him at any time. (Ibid.) Therefore, the court concluded that it "goes without saying" that "Farris was not free to leave while his bedroom was being searched. Had that search proved fruitless, he himself was a potential subject for search. He knew that. From the time that the officers arrived, defendant was obviously deprived of his freedom in a significant way." (Ibid.) The court thereafter reversed the judgment after concluding the statements should not have been admitted, and the admission was prejudicial. (Id. at p. 58.) The Farris court acknowledged that other appellate courts had held that Miranda warnings are not required each time a parole officer interviews a parolee. For example in In re Richard T. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 382, the appellate court concluded that no Miranda warning was required, because the parole officer was investigating a violation of a parole condition that was not a crime and only later discovered a crime. However, the Farris court distinguished Richard T. Unlike Richard T., in Farris the parole officer questioned Farris about a new criminal offense, with the investigation always focused on Farris. "Furthermore, once Farris was found to be in possession of the stolen jewelry, probable cause to arrest him existed." (Farris, supra, 120 Cal.App.3d at p. 57.)