California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Peracchi, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 921, 86 Cal.App.4th 353 (Cal. App. 2001):
Pointing out that the officer's questions were not geared toward guilt or innocence but instead sought to discover why Peracchi did not wish to speak at that time, respondent impliedly argues that the officer's questions did not amount to interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. In Rhode Island v. Innis, the United States Supreme Court defined the term "interrogation" as used in Miranda as either express questioning or "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."23 Using this definition we must determine whether the officer's questions, which were directed at why Peracchi did not wish to speak at that time, were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. On this point Anderson v. Smith, supra, is instructive.
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.