People v. Guilmette

In People v. Guilmette (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1534, after defendant asserted his right to remain silent, his former girlfriend, cooperating with the police, secretly recorded a telephone conversation between them; defendant made incriminating statements, which were introduced into evidence. The defendant asserted the girlfriend was acting as a police agent and that the conversation was inadmissible because it violated his Miranda rights. (Guilmette, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1538-1540.) In rejecting the claim, the court in Guilmette first pointed out that, under Illinois v. Perkins (1990), Miranda has no application to conversations between undercover police agents and inmates. It then turned to the defendant's alternative contention that under Edwards, supra, 451 U.S. 477 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, "his prior invocation of Miranda rights forever barred further police questioning." ( Guilmette, supra, at pp. 1540-1541.) Guilmette dismissed the claim summarily: "'Absent "custodial interrogation," Miranda simply does not come into play. . . . Hence, if "custodial interrogation" is lacking, Miranda rights are not implicated . . . .'" ( Id. at p. 1541.)