the defendant in this case the fifty one year was a fifty one year old man highly educated chemical engineer agreed the day before the interview oh to come in talk to the police at the police station get me to drive just now carry ten police station where he also we never asked to stop the interview or leave the station and agreed to return the next day after the interview was done and he returned to go home despite all these uncontroverted past the trout board how that defendant was in custody immediately accommodating south barrington police station with the detective at nine thirty in the morning i'm march sixth two thousand this finding is erroneous as a veteran of law and not in keeping with the decisions of the u supreme court illinois supreme court and this one which all of the defendants are not under arrest or seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment when the voluntary accompanies an officer to the police station for an interview when the made arrangements to have a family member a friend a company him to the station he could have changed his mind and not com but instead the defendant agreed to come here by him to the station and a brief and chose to come by absolutely not your honor the only evidence at a record is that there were two officers who who defended agreed to speak to during the interview which it was agency mountain time there's no indication that they were howard's hovering over illegal detention and in this case on if you take the appropriate standard which is a reasonable person innocent of a fine it is resolved that this defendant was willing to continue to cooperate because the defendant result person innocent of a crime with him wanted to cooperate with the police to have the investigation completed so that any concerns that they had of defendants involvement would have been satisfied and finished and that he could assumptions that as independent had testified and the defendant did not testify in this case we have absolutely no evidence the defendant did not feel free to leave and we absolutely have uncontroverted evidence that he never asked to leave or stop the interview in fact be concrete evidence shows at the end of the interview before defend it went home at the end of the of the day he agreed to return to the station and if it depended did return to the station and a time he chose not to continue the interview and  notes during the interview and instead to find an argument regarding the impossibility of agent tenses testimony with regard to not taking notes or possibly not remembering things is it it takes any asking this court in fact to make credibility findings at the trial but simply didn't make and that is not the role of the of the reviewing court the trial court they ruled against us did not mean a finding that he did not find the state's witnesses now credible  i mean that shows how truthful her testimony was i'm she could've in dallas but she did she didn't remember it was fourteen years later another point which i would i would like to point out is lunch break in it at the point in which the defendant made his inconsistent statements not a confession but inconsistent statements the officers to ensure that his rights were protected he defended his miranda rights he said i understood  of lack of probable cause when the quitter made it in response to the people's alternative argument that even if it any point the detention had turned had transformed into a seizure that there was the trial were simply made determinations that did not consider the totality of the circumstances which you must to tell it the circumstances known to the officers at the time which would make a reasonable cautious person believe that a mean it's an accent all it means is at that point in time the the medical examiner was prepared to make that serious and important distinction however it does not diminish the opinion of the medical examiner which was the internal and external injuries completely different probable cause for search warrant is based on the circumstances there's probable cause that they'll be evidence found in the home as opposed to this is  provide that the information that the officers have his probable cause he will find evidence of the crime in the house with the items that they wish to search and seeds and furthermore we would maintain that this was opinion issue or not issue a search warrant it doesn't mean that there was that wasn't a finding by chords and it also doesn't mean that there was a probable cause to arrest we would maintain that the charge of the trial for two over we emphasized that detail in determining whether or not it was cause is another example of the propriety of his findings we would maintain that based on the fact that the trial work was a release as a matter of what he did was he had by the evidence and the facts that work were going from their testimony and made his all this nonsense which he's entitled to but we would say they were incorrect as a matter of law for example he said that so so you take from bed that he showed their testimony and drew a different conclusion from what he accepted yes characterize it as if the policeman says it was a conversational meeting in the judge says it was a confrontational meeting what is it is that a credibility determination for a credibility of the state's witness or the state's position based on their testimony the state where the having this court believe except he was told to leave his car and go to another police station so that he had no way to get back other than people who would spear through the court found that inherently course at nine thirty five deposited into that police station i spent it simply because that's the only place they had an interview room which whether that circuit court believed that that on march fifth the day before they met for hours with the illinois state police troopers and he had sent for them because they were more experienced than a homicide matters and we sat i don't know if i can talk about the i'm sure net or anything else but i'll just throw this call retired you might want to go online and find him because he's teaching a concealed weapons that people would maintain that there is absolutely no evidence objective or subjective that it to liberate myth on the part of the officers to utilize a warrant first question first one later technique happened here in this doing an intentional technique of question first one later but in the head and authorized those situations are completely different the interview which occurred in those cases were such to get a confession from those  certainly it's a police investigation and he would have been a terrible police work had they not it formed the officers of what the details of the case that does not make this in a legal seizure or detention because he wanted to confess from the morning i mean that that was part of their intent absolutely not because if you look at the the nature of the interview that occurred in the morning it was more of a background interview what happened on sunday more about the background of the victim and her health conditions about their marital status and then when he made inconsistent statements about how he found his wife's body in the tub and other inconsistent constitutional rights such that the evidence should have been surprised absolutely not whether or not they could have done it at the house or or not the defendant agreed to the location  not a simple on educating young juvenile who was taken to the station and taken from his home and brought for questioning this is a gentleman who was called the day before i agreed to an interview agreeing to a vocation doing and that his appearance at the station was not it was voluntary he remained at the station voluntarily and teli went home at the end of the day we would maintain that the trial court was completely incorrect  details of the interview which the court did not find it unreliable and improbable because she didn't take notes there's no statute no requirement that she needs to take out she testified truthfully for the reasons make here