Lucero

People v. Lucero

Good Law
190 Cal. App. 3d 1065·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1658·235 Cal. Rptr. 751
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 31, 1987B020535California1,298 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The police surreptitiously tape recorded a conversation between two criminal suspects after one of them invoked his. right to have counsel present during interrogation. The trial court properly admitted the recording because the Sixth Amendment is not violated when neither the police nor police agents deliberately elicit incriminating statements.

Facts

Blaine Lucero and Theresa Vankol were arrested by Santa Barbara police on suspicion of auto theft and were taken to the police station for questioning about this and other possible crimes. They were questioned separately. Lucero at first waived his Miranda rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel, but after police accused him of robbery he asked to see a lawyer. Interrogation then stopped.

But the police, having gained incriminating information about Lucero from Vankol, wanted to hear more. They placed Lucero and Vankol together in a police car equipped with a hidden tape recorder, and left them alone. The police hoped the two would converse and incriminate themselves on tape. Their hunch paid off. Lucero discussed the details of various crimes, berated Vankol for statements she made to police, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.