What is the current state of the law on the Miranda rights?

As summarized in People v. Mosley (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1088-1089: "It is clear that advisement of Miranda rights is only required when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation. [Citation.] Custodial interrogation has two components. First, it requires that the person being questioned be in custody. Custody, for these purposes, means that the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. [Citation.] Furthermore, in determining if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes the trial court must apply an objective legal standard and decide if a reasonable person in the suspect's position would believe his freedom of movement was restrained to a degree normally associated with formal arrest. [Citation.] The test for custody does not depend on the subjective view of the interrogating officer or the person being questioned. [Citation.] The only relevant inquiry is "'how a reasonable man in the suspect's shoes would have understood his situation.'" [Citation.] The second component of custodial interrogation is obviously interrogation. For Miranda purposes, interrogation is defined as any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. [Citation.] In reviewing a ruling on the admissibility of a statement we must determine

Page 10