Thursday, May 28, 2026
Page 1
Facts Distinguished in Cases Involving Officer Posing as Inmate, Eliciting Admissions
Fourth District Court of Appeal’s Div. One Cautions Against Overly Broad Reading of Its Own Feb. 10 Decision
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Rights were not trammeled in the case of a man who admitted in a jail cell to an undercover police officer, posing as a suspect in a homicide who was recently released from prison, that he had committed a murder, even though his Miranda rights were invoked prior to the disclosure, Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday, differentiating the facts from those presented in a Feb. 10 decision.
That earlier opinion, in People v. Zapata, also emanated from Div. One. Justice David Rubin authored it.
There, undercover officers posed as fellow inmates, eliciting incriminating admissions by the suspect—as permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Illinois v. Perkins. However the “Perkins operation” was carried out after the suspect had invoked his Miranda rights.
Rubin declared:
“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.”
Departure From Precedent
In yesterday’s opinion, affirming the second-degree murder conviction of Obaida Saad Ramadhan, Justice Jose S. Castillo observed that “[o]ur recent decision in Zapata marked a departure from prior precedent.” Narrowing its application, he said:
“In our view…, Ramadhan reads our recent decision in People v. Zapata…too broadly. Distilled to its essence, Zapata prohibits participation in a Perkins operation by known law enforcement officers after a defendant has invoked the Miranda right to counsel.”
Ramadhan was placed in a cell with an officer who posed as a suspect; about 15 minutes later, another officer came in the cell and recited the evidence against Ramadhan; he said, “I’d like a lawyer.”
Soon after that, he made incriminating statements to the undercover officer.
Matter of ‘Timing’
Castillo reasoned:
“The critical factor is the timing of the known officer’s participation in the ruse relative to the invocation of the right to counsel. In Zapata, the defendant invoked his right to counsel after the fake lineup. Rather than provide the defendant with counsel, the known officer instead took him back to the cell occupied by the law enforcement agents and announced the murder charges in front of the agents, thus stimulating a conversation the officer expected would lead to damaging admissions. Here, on the other hand, the detective announced the murder charge and the alleged evidence supporting it in front of the law enforcement agent before Ramadhan invoked his right to counsel.”
He continued:
“The police conduct at issue here is therefore different in kind. After Ramadhan requested a lawyer, the known officer did nothing to stimulate conversations with the Perkins operative. Instead, the officer closed the cell door and allowed events to take their course. While the post-invocation conduct of the known officer in Zapata resulted in a coercive and police-dominated atmosphere that elevated the defendant’s experience into a custodial interrogation, the same is not true here. Ramadhan entirely overlooks this significant distinguishing fact.”
Rubin did not participate. Signing Castillo’s opinion were Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and Justice William Dato.
The case is People v. Ramadhan, D084475.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company