California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Binns, B250120 (Cal. App. 2015):
Appellant claims his second statement to detectives was "without Miranda" and involuntary. We disagree. " '[R]eadvisement [of Miranda rights] is unnecessary where the subsequent interrogation is "reasonably contemporaneous" with the prior knowing and intelligent waiver. [Citations.] The courts examine the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of time that has passed since the waiver, any change in the identity of the interrogator or the location of the interview, any official reminder of the prior advisement, the suspect's sophistication or past experience with law enforcement, and any indicia that he subjectively understands and waives his rights.' [Citations.]" (People v. Pearson (2012) 53 Cal.4th 306, 316-317 (Pearson).)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.