We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Article #2 – Reinitiating Custodial Interrogations

For the readers of the Legal Update, this is a California case and cites law unique to California. For readers outside of California please contact your local prosecutor for guidance in this area of Miranda.


Latisha Stephens was shot in the head as she drove her Ford Explorer from a skating rink. The killers were in a white SUV with special rims. A short time later Kenith Murphy’s SUV was fired upon but he was not injured. Murphy ducked as he was shot at. Murphy looked back up in time to see the white SUV open fire on a pickup truck. Curtis Galbert was in his pickup truck when he was shot by someone in a white SUV that he had earlier seen at a skating rink. Galbert described the shooter as being in the back passenger seat of the white SUV.

The following day, a man was beaten outside of a wedding reception. The assailants were people who emerged from a white SUV. Defendant was one of the passengers in the white SUV. The defendants shouted gang slogans while they were beating the victim.

Advisement of Rights?

Stallworth, an identified passenger in the white SUV, was arrested and questioned at approximately 5:00 p.m. at the Long Beach Police Department. At that time, Stallworth waived his rights, signed a waiver form and gave a statement.

The following morning between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m, Stallworth again was questioned by one of the detectives from the night before and a new officer. The detectives asked Stallworth whether he was read his rights, that they were “still in effect,” and whether he understood those rights. Stallworth answered in the affirmative to each question. Stallworth was also asked whether he still wanted to talk to the officers and Stallworth answered that he did.

The question for the court and you readers of the legal update is whether the second “advisement” is valid? Or whether, the defendant was even entitled to another advisement?

Subsequent Advisement?

The California Supreme Court has held that readvisement of rights is not necessary before a custodial interrogation is resumed provided a proper warning has been given, and the subsequent interrogation is reasonably contemporaneous with the prior valid waiver. (People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 504.)

The court set out factors that you should consider in determining whether a subsequent interrogation is reasonably contemporaneous; 1. The amount of time that has passed from the advisement to the second interrogation; 2. Any change in the identity of the interrogation or location of the interrogation; 3. An official reminder of the prior advisement of rights; 4. the suspect’s sophistication or past experience with law enforcement; and 5. any other evidence that the suspect subjectively understands his rights and knowingly waives them.

Under the facts here, the second interrogation occurred 16 hours after the first; Stallworth remained in custody in the same location as the first interrogation; one of the detectives was the same in the second interview as in the first; Stallworth was reminded of his earlier Miranda waiver; and Stallworth had a juvenile record, while not fully flushed out indicated some knowledge of the system; finally there was nothing about Stallworth that would have given the detectives pause to believe he did not understand his situation.

When resuming questioning with a suspect who has previously waived, it would be good to remember the four factors set out above. The detectives here conducted their subsequent interrogation and Miranda waiver in a legal manner that allowed Stallworth’s statement to be admitted at trial. (Note: This case was reversed on other grounds.)

Chuck Gillingham is a veteran prosecutor and regular instructor for the California District Attorney’s Association and the Federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Chuck also teaches Multidisciplinary Child Interviewing and Child Exploitation Investigation for Third Degree Communications, Inc.

If you wish to print and share this Legal Update Training Bulletin with your colleagues, credit must be given to Third Degree Communications, Inc. and the Author.

  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda