Is a recording of a rape victim's phone call made by a police undercover agent admissible under the so-called Perkins procedure?

The First District rejected precisely this argument in People v. Guilmette (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1534 (Guilmette). The defendant had invoked his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney before police recorded a phone call he made to his rape victim, who was acting as a police agent and asking questions suggested by the police. (Id. at p. 1538.) The court held the recording was admissible under Perkins, regardless of the defendant's earlier invocation of his Miranda rights: "It is true, as appellant contends, that in Perkins there was no Miranda warning, no invocation of Miranda rights, and that the issue presented to the court was whether the undercover agent was required to give Perkins a Miranda warning. These distinguishing facts, however, do not change or alter the basic nature of the respective conversations by Perkins and appellant herein. . . . Statements made under these circumstances simply do not implicate Miranda, and a noncoercive atmosphere is not transformed into a coercive one because one suspect is warned and the other is not." (Guilmette, at p. 1541.)