Candelario

The sole contention of appellant is that he was not advised of his right to counsel and to remain silent under the Dorado rule (People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ]) as combined with the rule in Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 [ 84 S.Ct. 1199 , 12 L.Ed.2d 246 ], It is unnecessary to give a detailed recitation of the facts. Briefly, they are similar to many others in cases in which an informer is used. Agents of the State Narcotics Bureau made arrangements for an informer to contact appellant and to try to negotiate a purchase of heroin. This was done successfully. The agents were listening to much of the conversation by the use of a Fargo communications system. The case does have one rather unusual fact (unusual at least as to the records which appear before us) in that Candelario, the appellant, being suspicious of the informer, insisted that the latter take a shot of heroin himself. This the informer did.

Appellant contends (1) that he was in a sort of custody during much of the period when he was under surveillance, as was Massiah, that suspicion had focused on him, and that the officers were attempting to get incriminating statements from…