California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Ramadhan is that statements made by a defendant to an undercover agent in a Perkins operation are admissible even after the defendant invokes the right to counsel, under circumstances where the known law enforcement officer does not participate in or stimulate the conversation after the defendant's invocation of Miranda rights.

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

Defendant Appellant was Obaida Saad Ramadhan — the 18-year-old defendant convicted of shooting Jasiah White in a parking lot.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the state prosecuting the second degree murder charge.

The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for second degree murder.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that in August 2022, Jasiah White was hanging out in a parking lot when Ramadhan, wearing a gray hoodie, joined the group. White was shot and killed with five 9mm rounds. Ramadhan was identified through witness testimony and social media posts. While in custody on gun charges, Ramadhan was placed in a cell with an undercover agent. A detective announced murder charges and listed evidence against Ramadhan in front of the agent. Ramadhan then twice requested "I'd like a lawyer." After the detective left, the undercover agent continued talking to Ramadhan, who made incriminating statements about wiping casings with baby wipes and disposing of evidence.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Ramadhan's motion to suppress his statements made during the Perkins operation after invoking his right to counsel, ruling that the statements were admissible, and Ramadhan was convicted of second degree murder with firearm enhancements and sentenced to 20 years plus 15 years to life.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the trial court erred in admitting statements Ramadhan made during a Perkins operation after he invoked his right to counsel.

The Appellate Court held that the statements were properly admitted because, distinguishing People v. Zapata, the known law enforcement officer did not participate in or stimulate conversation with the undercover agent after Ramadhan invoked his right to counsel, but instead announced the charges before the invocation and then left the cell, allowing events to take their natural course without creating a police-dominated atmosphere.

The case is inapplicable when a known law enforcement officer actively participates in, stimulates, or orchestrates conversation between a defendant and undercover agents after the defendant has invoked Miranda rights, or when the known officer takes actions designed to increase coercive pressure on the defendant post-invocation.

The case leaves open questions about what level of pre-invocation conduct by known officers might render subsequent statements inadmissible, and the precise boundaries of permissible law enforcement conduct in Perkins operations where Miranda rights are invoked mid-operation.