What is the burden of proving that a police interview constituted a custodial interrogation?

The parties do not dispute that the February 22, 2012 interview at the police station constituted a custodial interrogation. A custodial interrogation must be preceded by the familiar Miranda warnings and by the suspect's knowing and intelligent waiver of them. (People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530-531; People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 751.) The prosecution has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused's rights under Miranda were not violated. (People v. Dykes, at p. 751; People v. Villasenor (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 42, 59.)

When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a claimed Miranda violation, we accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences and its credibility evaluations if supported by substantial evidence. We independently determine from those facts whether the challenged statements were illegally obtained. (People v. Elizalde, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 530; People v. Dykes, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 751.)

(i) Aguilar was properly advised of, and initially waived, his Miranda rights