People v. Vaquera CA4/3, G050801

Anaheim police executed a search warrant at appellant Oscar Vaquera’s apartment after peer-to-peer investigation linked his computer to child pornography; officers encountered residents and Vaquera at the doorway.
Officers (uniformed, armed) asked Vaquera to speak; he voluntarily accompanied Officers Fay and Maya to a shaded area under a staircase ~40–50 feet from the apartment; he was not handcuffed or told he was under arrest or free to leave.
Fay (with Maya interpreting) conducted an ~hour-long interview; Vaquera admitted videotaping teenage boys through a hole in his closet wall and using Frostwire; police learned of camera, notebook, and other evidence during the interview.
After these admissions, officers took Vaquera back to the apartment, read Miranda warnings, obtained a waiver, and conducted a second interview in which Vaquera again admitted videotaping and admitted molesting one boy; he was then handcuffed and arrested.
Trial convictions: multiple counts for lewd acts on children under 14 and possession/possession with intent to distribute child pornography; sentence 25 years to life.
Vaquera moved to suppress: (1) pre-Miranda statements as custodial and therefore inadmissible; (2) post-Miranda statements inadmissible under Missouri v. Seibert (ask-first-advise-later tactic). Trial court denied suppression; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-Miranda statements made under the staircase were custodial such that Miranda warnings were required	Police: treatment was noncustodial because Vaquera voluntarily agreed to talk, was not restrained, and interview occurred in public view away from apartment	Vaquera: the environment (multiple armed officers, hour-long questioning, separation from others, inability to contact family) created a custodial situation requiring Miranda warnings	Not custodial — objective circumstances (voluntariness, lack of restraint or arrest, cordial questioning, only two officers actively involved) did not render interview Miranda custodial
Whether post-Miranda statements must be suppressed under Seibert because police deliberately used an "ask-first-advise-later" strategy to elicit an initial confession	Police: even if prewarning statements were problematic, the later warned confession was voluntary and officers did not intentionally withhold warnings to undermine Miranda	Vaquera: the close temporal/setting continuity and overlapping topics show a deliberate Seibert-style tactic making the warned confession tainted	Seibert inapplicable — no evidence officers deliberately withheld warnings to evade Miranda; shift in subject matter after warnings and credible officer testimony showed good-faith investigation

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requires advising of rights where custodial interrogation occurs)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (plurality/controlling concurrence condemning deliberate ask-first-advise-later tactic)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (warned confession following a voluntary unwarned confession is admissible absent deliberate police tactic)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995) (custody determination is objective: would a reasonable person feel free to terminate questioning and leave)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (officer’s subjective view that person is a suspect is not dispositive of custody)
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (arrest or restraints tantamount to arrest are central to custody inquiry)