Santos claim in California

2026Miranda “To safeguard a suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination from the ‘inherently compelling pressures’ of custodial interrogation (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 467 ), the high court adopted a set of prophylactic measures requiring law enforcement officers to advise an accused of his right to remain silent and to have counsel present prior to any 17 The Perkins agent was between 30 and 50 years old, weighed between 180 and 230 pounds, and was between five feet eight inches and six feet one inch tall. 18 On July 14, 2025, defendant filed a request for judicial notice

2026Miranda “To safeguard a suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination from the ‘inherently compelling pressures’ of custodial interrogation (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 467 ), the high court adopted a set of prophylactic measures requiring law enforcement officers to advise an accused of his right to remain silent and to have counsel present prior to any 17 The Perkins agent was between 30 and 50 years old, weighed between 180 and 230 pounds, and was between five feet eight inches and six feet one inch tall. 18 On July 14, 2025, defendant filed a request for judicial notice

2023(Id. at pp. 258–259.) The James W. court concluded that the defendants, who had ‘[not] identified or reported child abuse,’ were not entitled to immunity because they ‘voluntarily assumed roles of those who, having received the report and determined the identity of the perpetrator, search[ed] for corroboration and/or attempt[ed] to pressure a witness to get a conviction.’ (James W., at p. 256.)” (Santos, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 879 , fns. omitted.) Distinct from this, the Santos defendant, who had effectuated a citizen’s arrest in close connection and time proximity to a mandated report, un

2023(Id. at pp. 258–259.) The James W. court concluded that the defendants, who had ‘[not] identified or reported child abuse,’ were not entitled to immunity because they ‘voluntarily assumed roles of those who, having received the report and determined the identity of the perpetrator, search[ed] for corroboration and/or attempt[ed] to pressure a witness to get a conviction.’ (James W., at p. 256.)” (Santos, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 879 , fns. omitted.) Distinct from this, the Santos defendant, who had effectuated a citizen’s arrest in close connection and time proximity to a mandated report, un

2026(See fn. 11, post [noting Santos claims Officer Villanueva expressed his intention to search the vehicle prior to the driver’s admission that contraband was in the car]; Dolly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 463 ; Evans, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 752, fn. 10 ; Bush, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1052 .) The trial court did not err in rejecting Santos’s claim the detention was constitutionally infirm.

2026(See fn. 11, post [noting Santos claims Officer Villanueva expressed his intention to search the vehicle prior to the driver’s admission that contraband was in the car]; Dolly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 463 ; Evans, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 752, fn. 10 ; Bush, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1052 .) The trial court did not err in rejecting Santos’s claim the detention was constitutionally infirm.

2026(See fn. 11, post [noting Santos claims Officer Villanueva expressed his intention to search the vehicle prior to the driver’s admission that contraband was in the car]; Dolly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 463 ; Evans, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 752, fn. 10 ; Bush, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1052 .) The trial court did not err in rejecting Santos’s claim the detention was constitutionally infirm.

2026(See fn. 11, post [noting Santos claims Officer Villanueva expressed his intention to search the vehicle prior to the driver’s admission that contraband was in the car]; Dolly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 463 ; Evans, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 752, fn. 10 ; Bush, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1052 .) The trial court did not err in rejecting Santos’s claim the detention was constitutionally infirm.