California Legal Brief

The Rule of The People v. Zapata is that when a suspect invokes and does not waive the right to counsel, and a known law enforcement officer continues to "stimulate" a Perkins operation in a manner that amounts to a custodial interrogation, the suspect's resulting incriminating statements are inadmissible, under circumstances where the known officer's actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and created a police-dominated atmosphere of compulsion.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Riverside County.

Defendant Appellant was Jason Johnomar Zapata — the murder suspect who invoked his right to counsel during a fake lineup but was then returned to an undercover operation where he confessed.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking to use Zapata's confession obtained during the stimulated Perkins operation.

The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for second degree murder. No cross-claims were applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Zapata was suspected of murdering Justin Triplett on September 22, 2014. During a Perkins operation while Zapata was in custody on unrelated charges, a deputy placed him in a holding cell with two undercover agents for over three hours. The deputy monitored and "stimulated" the operation by contacting Zapata multiple times, removing him for a fake lineup where he falsely told Zapata a witness identified him, and when Zapata invoked his right to counsel, the deputy returned him to the cell while announcing murder charges, prompting the undercover agents to question him about the murder, leading to Zapata's confession.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Zapata's motion to exclude his statements and admitted the confession recording, ruling that the Perkins operation did not violate Miranda despite Zapata's invocation of counsel.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the admission of Zapata's statements violated Miranda when he had previously invoked his right to counsel and a known law enforcement officer's stimulation tactics transformed the Perkins operation into a custodial interrogation.

The Appellate Court held that when known law enforcement officers actively stimulate a Perkins operation through tactics reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses (such as fake lineups and announcing charges to undercover operatives), this creates a police-dominated atmosphere of compulsion that constitutes custodial interrogation, making statements inadmissible when the suspect previously invoked counsel and did not waive that right.

The case is inapplicable when the Perkins operation involves only undercover agents without known officer stimulation, when the suspect has not invoked Miranda rights, when any police stimulation does not rise to the level of compulsion or coercion, or when the suspect makes a knowing and intelligent waiver of previously invoked rights.

The case leaves open the question of what specific level or type of police stimulation is necessary to transform a Perkins operation into custodial interrogation, the precise boundaries between permissible and impermissible stimulation tactics, and the broader question pending California Supreme Court review regarding whether Edwards or Perkins controls when a suspect invokes Miranda rights before speaking to undercover agents.