let go and what what about his body polo epilog me over whatever what what was it was he involved at all and their particular event where defendant went to the police station yes  a very long time and also this time nobody knew where he was this is another significant aspect of this case he was stopped in his car in his way home from work it wasn't like he was picked up at his home or something you know the police are taking him he was there all alone knowing that nobody knows where am i am here at the hands of the police they have all the power and powerless and i want a phone call and he's not getting a phone call this is not and this is not a situation where he's just outside world without a phone call without any having to access his constitutional right to a lawyer better to stay with involuntary no there's no testimony that in and he said to him you're not getting a phone call until you confess or anything like fact that the police told them his head access to the telephone would be contingent upon his cooperation with law enforcement yes but it just got to say even absent an express threat this is a course of device  he asked her where this time you know you know at least last night was when you know he was there and knew if used to stay there for a while he could tell family members get a lawyer nobody knew he was there how is he going to get a lawyer flagrantly violated the statute was meant to protect a big male violated simply by not giving him what he asked when he asked for it but i don't know that there's a case out there that they're upset the you know looked at how could top people find this person guilty going to talk about the exceptional persuasive force that the statement has and marco polo made a statement that oh you talked to me told me some thing that happened that is not as powerful as a sign handwritten statement to an assistant state's attorney moreover the statement given the boy had some questions in it and he said oh and he told me they ransacked the place there's no evidence of initially involved in this of course is going to do whatever he can to extract extricate himself from me from any involvement he had never met in this house for maybe he got the wrong guy the jury could find that he got the wrong guy  powerful language that a person has no reason not to believe that the police are not going to continue with this indefinite prolog detention and this you give them what they want of course interview with they want it even if they don't explicitly say it   i don't think you can lose sight of the you know however the only remedy that this court found ways to quote recommend the consideration of possible sanctions against the police officers this was a recognition that is the responsibility of the legislature to terribly without compulsion or inducement of any sort or whether defendant's will was overboard there are a number of all settled back there is the courts look to in order to answer that question and one of the factors defendant relies upon in this case is th duration of the detention in this case that bennett was detained for approximately twenty four hours from the time that he was placed into the interview room pending st degree murder charges until the point that he  you're going to have the records nine entirely detail down what exactly that process entailed however like i said the police in this case where essentially waiting for charges to be approved before they did that point it's important to detail what happened within that twenty four hours defendant was given food he was given snacks it's given a meal he was getting water and was given so drugs given cigarettes he had an issue of one point with his contact lance and one of the police officers took defendant to the bathroom and assisted him until that issue was resolved with respect to the handcuffs for the most part during his detention defendant was this was one arm handcuffed to a ring which was approximately three to four feet above the ground and it was positioned above along the bench and in fact the testimony at trial indicated that for most of the one night defendant spent in home call was not right as far as the police the police testified that their standard procedure at the time was to wait till after the booking process and they could not this is their testimony they could not but defend it until they had not the record does not indicate one way or the other if balogna review was contacted or not the implication from their testimony would be that the interview ned was contacted since they were awaiting approval of the charges and then but ultimately applying the relevant factors under the totality of the circumstances the people argue that there is insufficient evidence in this case to hold the defendants will was over borne by police coercion here defendant was twenty five years old  wall yes around it and as a police testified this was further officer safety as well as defendant safety and like i said to defend it was able to sit on the bench and from the testimony  and moreover during the entire period of his detention since that time since defendant almost immediately in both his right to counsel and police ceased all questioning at that time he was something he was not subject to persistent question suppression and in fact in determining whether the statement was voluntary and sanchez sanchez noted the most notable factor was that he was knocking a phone call even suggested maybe sanctions should be imposed and in that case the phone call was just to call his mother it after arrival to the place the custody it's a time of custody that triggers this right to a phone call not the booking process now whenever the police put procedural suggested it should be in fact when you brought up the content of very similarly the police have now started putting signs in the police station to advise suspects that they have a right to a phone call and if there's an attorney i'm appalled that they should be able to access the fact that he was given food and water