In People v. Burton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 375, the Supreme Court reversed a first-degreemurder conviction because a confession was made after the defendant, a 16 year old, requested to see his parents and his request was flatly refused. The court said at page 382: "For minors, it would seem that the desire for help naturally manifests in a request for parents. It would certainly severely restrict the 'protective devices' required by Miranda in cases where the suspects are minors if the only call for help which is to be deemed an invocation of the privilege is the call for an attorney." In that case, a 16-year-old defendant spoke to deputies after having been advised of his Miranda rights. (Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 379.) Prior to the statements, his father had arrived at the police station and asked to see him and was refused. Defendant had also asked to see his parents before questioning commenced. The Supreme Court held, "When, as in the instant case, a minor is taken into custody and is subjected to interrogation, without the presence of an attorney, his request to see one of his parents, made at any time prior to or during questioning, must, in the absence of evidence demanding a contrary conclusion, be construed to indicate that the minor suspect desires to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. Citations." (Id. at pp. 383-384.) In the Burton case our Supreme Court reasoned, "It appears to us most likely and most normal that a minor who wants help on how to conduct himself with the police and wishes to indicate that he does not want to proceed without such help would express such desire by requesting to see his parents. For adults, removed from the protective ambit of parental guidance, the desire for help naturally manifests in a request for an attorney. For minors, it would seem that the desire for help naturally manifests in a request for parents. It would certainly severely restrict the 'protective devices' required by Miranda in cases where the suspects are minors if the only call for help which is to be deemed an invocation of the privilege is the call for an attorney. It is fatuous to assume that a minor in custody will be in a position to call an attorney for assistance and it is unrealistic to attribute no significance to his call for help from the only person to whom he normally looks--a parent or guardian. It is common knowledge that this is the normal reaction of a youthful suspect who finds himself in trouble with the law." (Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 382.) The California Supreme Court held that when a "minor is taken into custody and is subjected to interrogation, without the presence of an attorney, his request to see one of his parents, made at any time prior to or during questioning, must, in the absence of evidence demanding a contrary conclusion, be construed to indicate that the minor suspect desires to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. The police must cease custodial interrogation immediately upon exercise of the privilege." (Id. at pp. 383-384.) If the police do not cease, the confession obtained by the subsequent questioning is inadmissible, and, therefore, "the admission of such confession is prejudicial per se and compels reversal of the judgment . . . ." (Id. at p. 384.) The rule was based upon the belief that a minor seeking help would more naturally request a parent than an attorney. (Id. at p. 382.)