The California Supreme Court held that police may reinitiate interrogation of a defendant, even after the defendant has invoked his right to counsel under Miranda, if there is a significant break in custody. Do you think that is fair?

Not really. However, wasn't it John who once opined that no really cares what happens in the 3rd world country of California (great happyhour line, I've used it several times).

What made me pay attention to the case was the liberal votes that joined the opinion.

Defendant, during custodial interrogation, said he wanted an attorney. So, interrogation ceased and defendant was told he was free to go (not enough evidence to hold him). Prosecutor told investigators to check back with defendant two days later at his home.

At his home, during noncustodial interrogation, defendant confessed. He had not gotten an attorney.

The Court said the break in custody was significant enough to dissipate any Miranda requirements. Doesn't this create a great opportunity for investigators to obtain lawful confessions while respecting the protections required by Miranda?