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

People v. Elizalde

Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled on People v. Elizalde. The lower court ruled that an unMirandized booking statement that addressed the defendant’s gang status was a violation of Miranda warnings and was inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.  Gang prosecutors were hopeful the Cal Supremes would  overrule that decision—in vain.  





Multiple defendants were convicted in a gang murder.[1] Three witnesses testified the defendant was a Sureno gang member.  A gang expert also testified that defendant was a Sureno gang member. 


Sureno gang members were instructed to “put in work.”  On three occasions defendant with other surenos went into gang territory and murdered three victims and attempted to murder two others. The defendant was convicted of three murders along with other charges as well as several gang enhancements.




At trial defendant moved to exclude his admission of gang membership during booking and classification at the jail.  Every gang related inmate is routinely asked whether they have gang affiliation and whether they are fearful of their safety.  As is well known, classification at the jail review all relevant information and house rival gang members separately. 


After his arrest and before he received Miranda warning defendant was asked standard booking questions and defendant admitted he was a Sureno gang member.  When he was told he would be searched for contraband the defendant laughed and said he was in for things he didn’t do…that he didn’t kill anyone…somebody was trying to bring him down…that he was a gang-banger but not a murderer…when asked whether he wanted to speak to a detective defendant agreed…after he spoke with an attorney. 


Defendant was then interviewed by a classification deputy for “housing.”  Defendant was not advised of his rights, the deputy knew defendant was in for a murder but did not know whether defendant was charged with murder.  The deputy testified he was only asking questions to insure the safety of the institution and the defendant.  He was not doing an investigation of the charges.  The defendant told the deputy he was a Sureno street gang and that he was an active member. 


At trial the trial court allowed the statements to be admitted.  The Court of Appeal reversed the decision but upheld the conviction. 




The Court reviewed the booking question exception and agreed that it continues.  The only question is the extent of the exception.  The court also reviewed the  familiar prongs of Miranda; custody and interrogation.  The first prong was clear, but are classification questions interrogation? Under these facts the court held that they are.  


The Court held that a question regarding gang affiliation could not be viewed in the same way as pedigree questions (name, dob, address etc.).  The Court held that gang membership carries penal consequences.  The Court found that while it is important for the custodial institution to know whether the defendant is gang affiliated and the questioning may be only for those purposes-the questions are still calling for an incriminating response and thus violate Miranda.


 As a result, while the questions are important and can and should continue to be asked, they may not be used in the prosecution case-in-chief.  What that means is the prosecution cannot elicit that information from the classification officer; that a gang expert may rely on the statement in forming their opinion but may not quote it in their direct examination and any other references to unMirandized responses may not be used in the case-in-chief.  Officers should still be asking the questions, documenting responses and providing that information to investigating officers and experts.  The jury may just never hear the information.  [2]


[1] Three defendants were convicted of murdering multiple victims in multiple acts.  Defendant Mota was actually the subject of the appeal.  It is irrelevant for our purposes here which defendant the court references. 


[2] The Court held any error to be harmless.  The defendant received 100 to life. 

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

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • 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