Reported / Citable
Background
In August 2022, 18-year-old Obaida Saad Ramadhan was suspected of fatally shooting Jasiah White in a parking lot in San Diego. Witnesses saw someone in a gray hoodie running from the scene, and five 9mm casings were recovered, but police found no gun, no usable DNA, and no fingerprints. Ramadhan was eventually arrested on gun charges.
While Ramadhan was in a holding cell, police ran an Illinois v. Perkins operation — a technique where an undercover law enforcement agent poses as a fellow inmate to elicit statements outside the protections of Miranda. A known homicide detective entered the cell, announced murder charges, listed purported evidence against Ramadhan, and told him “this is your opportunity to be straight up.” Ramadhan responded by invoking his right to counsel twice: “I’d like a lawyer.”
The detective then left. The undercover agent, still posing as a cellmate, immediately engaged Ramadhan — telling him “the casings are gonna fuck you” and asking pointed follow-up questions. Ramadhan made incriminating statements, including that he had wiped the shell casings with baby wipes before the shooting. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to 20 years plus 15 years to life.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that Ramadhan’s statements to the undercover agent were admissible despite his prior invocation of the right to counsel.
The court drew a critical factual distinction from its own recent decision in People v. Zapata (2026). In Zapata, a known officer’s stimulating conduct — announcing murder charges and listing evidence directly in front of undercover agents — occurred after the suspect had already invoked Miranda rights, converting the Perkins operation into a prohibited custodial interrogation. Here, the detective’s announcement occurred before Ramadhan invoked his right to counsel. After the invocation, the detective left and no known officer did anything further to stimulate conversation.
The court held that the determinative question under Zapata is what the known officer did after invocation — not what the undercover agent did. Because no known officer acted after Ramadhan said “I’d like a lawyer,” the Perkins framework applied, and the undercover agent’s questions fell outside Miranda’s reach.
Key Takeaways
- Under Zapata, the timing of a known officer’s stimulating actions relative to a suspect’s Miranda invocation is the bright-line test for whether a Perkins operation violates Miranda.
- If a known officer announces charges or presents evidence before the suspect invokes counsel, and then leaves without further involvement, statements made to the undercover agent remain admissible under Perkins.
- The undercover agent’s own questioning — even if pointed and designed to elicit incriminating responses — does not trigger Miranda protections as long as no known officer participated after invocation.
- The California Supreme Court has a pending case (People v. Allen, S286520) addressing the related but distinct question of Perkins statements obtained after invocation of the right to remain silent.
Why It Matters
This decision sharpens the rules for jailhouse undercover operations in California. Law enforcement now has a clearer roadmap: a Perkins operation remains viable even if the suspect invokes Miranda, so long as the known officer’s stimulating conduct precedes the invocation and the known officer withdraws afterward. Defense attorneys, meanwhile, have a narrower window to suppress Perkins statements — they must show that a known officer actively stimulated conversation after the suspect asked for a lawyer.
The decision also flags an important unresolved question headed to the California Supreme Court in People v. Allen: whether the same analysis applies when a suspect invokes the right to remain silent rather than the right to counsel. The answer could further reshape the boundaries of permissible undercover interrogation in California.