Under what procedural safeguards under the Miranda Miranda, or otherwise, does a suspect have to be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him?

Under Miranda, "[b]efore being subjected to 'custodial interrogation,' a suspect 'must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.' [Citation.] Statements elicited in violation of this rule are generally inadmissible in a criminal trial. [Citations.]" (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 732.) The procedural safeguards of Miranda " . . . come into play only

Page 14

where 'custodial interrogation' is involved, and by 'custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.' " (People v. Fiorrito (1968) 68 Cal.2d 718, 718 [quoting Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 444].) The raison d'etre of Miranda is to "preserve the [Fifth Amendment] privilege during 'incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere' [(Miranda, at p. 445)] [because] [t]hat atmosphere is said to generate 'inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.' [(Id. at p. 467.)]" (Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, 296 (Perkins).) Indeed, because "[i]t is the premise of Miranda that the danger of coercion results from the interaction of custody and official interrogation" (id. at p. 297, emphasis added), and " '[f]idelity to the doctrine announced in Miranda requires that it be enforced strictly, but only in those types of situations in which the concerns that powered the decision are implicated' " (id. at p. 296, quoting Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 437), the doctrine has not been applied when one or the other components is absent. (Perkins, at pp. 297-300 [defendant in custody was questioned by person who lacked indicia of law enforcement authority; held "an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response"].)