1HV0iyl#CEB
1HV0iyl#CEB
1HV0iyl#CEB
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
his wife and child missing. The officers met defendant at the emergency room,<br />
asked to speak with him, and transported him to the station without handcuffs.<br />
From the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that defendant wanted to<br />
accompany the officers to the station, in part, to obtain a ride since he had no other<br />
means of transportation.<br />
At the detective bureau, the interview itself was investigatory, lasted less<br />
than an hour, was not “hostile, menacing, or accusatory,” and occurred in an<br />
unlocked room. (People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 345; see People v.<br />
Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 828, 832, 834 [no custodial interrogation where<br />
defendant not considered a suspect at time of interview and officers’ questions<br />
were investigatory, not accusatory]; Green v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d<br />
126, 131-133, 135 [same].) Defendant knew he was not under arrest since he was<br />
told he could leave after the interview. (See Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S.<br />
492, 495 [no custody where defendant came voluntarily to police station, and told<br />
immediately he was not under arrest].]) The detectives asked about Mary’s and<br />
Carley’s activities that morning, defendant’s activities that day and the<br />
circumstances of discovering the van. Defendant answered all of their questions,<br />
and did not confess to any involvement in the murders. After the interview,<br />
defendant, who had earlier been allowed to use a detective bureau restroom, was<br />
not arrested and was instead driven home. (See People v. Leonard, supra, 40<br />
Cal.4th at p. 1401; People v. Pilster (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1403-1404.)<br />
Defendant contends that the detectives’ manner communicated that they<br />
were in control. They said, “I’m going to ask you some questions,” “sit up a bit<br />
now,” and “open your eyes and look at this.” However, the record shows that, in<br />
context, these statements were made in connection with the officer’s efforts to<br />
determine whether defendant understood and voluntarily signed a statement<br />
allowing the police to search his house for evidence. Defendant claims that he<br />
24