Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Deborah C.

California Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1981No. Crim. No. 21768Published

1ConcurrenceBird, C. J.

I concur in the majority opinion. However, I write separately to emphasize that the principles herein enunciated do not apply to off-duty police officers who work part time as security guards for private businesses. The majority’s holding is limited to a determination that the policies which underlie the Miranda decision do not extend to private security guards.

Unlike the private security guard, a police officer is under a continuing duty to protect the public. (See Pen. Code, §§ 830.1 and 836; *141People v. Derby (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 626 [2 Cal.Rptr. 401].) The fact that police pfficers may…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cervantez v. J. C. Penney Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  2. People v. CoreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. People v. DerbyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. State v. WilladsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API