recording any oral communication a conversation a conversation is defined as he or communication between two or more people whether or not they intend the conversation to be private or whether or not they have an sees a box like a p a box like we had in school and he sees that and he makes a comment is there an understanding that it may be getting communicated to somebody another room and unless he never watched t v in his life he that it's a two way rule to make it way window right there i think if you get into the area of implied consent and i don't think that that would be implied consent because he clearly did not know that he was going to listen to i mean i think everyone knows we know that i mean you're making a definitive statement how do we know that he didn't know that he was going to be your room with people you don't know in the lineup fillers i assume and you're standing there with other people and you see something you know whether it's spanish or english they we can overhear you so we're we're iss understand your expectation that that this is not is a private conversation where does it come from first of all the statute doesn't require you to have this is someone different you standing in line up with another with a group of people there are other people in the room and he makes it an incriminating statement is he implicitly saying i'm going to bring down other people over here this that's that's what the statute explicitly says and clement acknowledges that the early legislature federal the federal congress allowed for concrete legislation and illinois decided to pass a stringent  insane hot the person who was monitoring the conversation repeatedly told them i can hear you shut up she would have been used to face conversation and said i can hear you you keep talking i can hear you not to mention there was a  strange thing you know people confess to things all the time you know making creaming statements all the time sure but i think you have to have some factors to look to towards implied consent and say ah you have a whole lot of factors that there is no way anyone could look at that and say they didn't will when you are told repeatedly we are listening this is to take a subpoena testified he did not know now you're right that doesn't necessarily one hundred percent proof but i think it's pretty clear that hindi been mirandi it well once again i don't think first of all miranda applies to interrogation not listening to him and i think said the statute has a lot of exemptions i poured over him trying to make sure that there was no exemption i was walk down the road with me what does that do in the future for menard state bill are you saying i mean if we write that way and the eavesdropping statute applies to this situation obviously  conversation there's so i think that my news opinion is just following the statute there is no exemption for this say i recognize that this statute applies in a custody a situation there was just a plethora of evidence on the relevant here we the statute is the statute and i personally think there's a lot of benefit to providing more protection of the privacy than the constitution applies you know i think there's been a lot of scholar's you think you know talking through the glass to his lawyer or his wife and there's a guard's behind him and says it may be recorded or may be overheard and the guard here is and say you know make sure that you get their guys who never testifies against you or something like that right to an adequate word here that will show that impartial jury is impaneled in this case defendant scott defense counsel clearly thought immigration bias might be an issue so he was tempted to question the jurors to find out if there was a bias and apparently the rest out of bias because a lot of people raise their hands and said yes and then the trial court redefined bias in such a limited manner that it basically stopped court also though went out and with each person and said you can be fair and impartial and i think a couple people said initially oh that would bother me if the person was an illegal immigrant even though this even though mr president that correct he's not toward illegal immigrants i think she continued to say you know fair and impartial fair impartial it with everybody you can still be fair impartial even if you you know every she said at one point everyone has biases but you can still be fair and impartial to these defendants can you can not created in a vacuum and certainly in this case as far as the eavesdropping statute is concerned it should not by any means be separated from the fourth amendment analysis people versus coleman tells us that the illinois supreme court specifically discussed that issue i'll that exactly but the legislature did not intend that in a review of the legislative history shows that one of the overriding concerns for creating this highly stringent use dropping statute in illinois was so it would prevent illicit eavesdropping kind of suicide you dropping by the police and it would inherently protect fourth amendment search and seizure rights so looking at the legislative history it did not in any way conceive of a situation like this where defendant comes into he's sitting inside of a lineup looking at a mirror he's about to be identified and i will suffice to say he took a calculated risk that no one would actually understand him but no one would understand when he spoke  spanish he didn't make the statement in english that he took a calculated risk by turning to his co defendants and saying you should never open your mouth and talk to the police that is not under the statute for the statute for four reasons it doesn't apply to one there was no conversation it was just a statement that he made to his co defendants they were talking they were lined up and they walked into the lineup room second that the use of this eavesdropping device if it can even be called that was not knowing an intelligent subpoena was in there waiting for witnesses to come in one of the witnesses was going to identify the defendants from their backside so obviously there has to be a device he can say please turn around at this point so there is no intelligence and knowing he was he wasn't trying to eavesdrop it was a practical use of the device third implied consent absolutely just gallagher you asked are they generally visible yes they are depending on i and i haven't been in that particular room but generally they're up on the roll there might be two there might be in there this was not concealed in any way shape or form and certainly in the police station we are not of such a high technological level that you know these are giant you know intercom systems this was not some highly technological place where it would not be visible and the fourth reason is this isn't an eavesdropping device that wasn't used for eavesdropping it was used for the purpose of informing anyone who's standing in a line up to turn around to say something it was it was used as a means of communication far cry from what the statute says to the elements within the eavesdropping statute under fourteen one essay is that it needs to be now and intelligent we absolutely don't have that factor in this case and it does need to be analyzed in terms of the fourth amendment because it's ludicrous to say that in a police station after he's been randomized in standish multiple times that he has any right to expectation of privacy as just  pointed out it is a public building not only as a public building but he's just been arrested for murder for hire and he knows that he's standing in a in a line up in addition there's two complete strangers there that he doesn't even know there's no expectation of privacy they were actually informed we can overhear you and they continue to talk this is an even easier one he's not talking to anyone he just makes the spontaneous declaration of somebody's lips and that absolutely there would be no question we wouldn't even be here or if one of the officers now interesting late it was officer crews that acted as the translator here so it can be assumed that the defendant knew officer crisp spanish he did know the officers hey that was behind  here and that he could speak spanish to and it was a different officer that led them and into the room so he actually just made a calculated risk that no one can understand me there is nothing to say that the two other individuals that were in that room that were the fillers couldn't understand understand spanish it was just it was a sense it was a decision he made and now he's trying to hide behind the statue which in no way was intended for situation like this i mean the the process it ends from reversing this under the statute would be that any time a defendant is in a lineup you know whether he makes a spontaneous statement or not police are precluded from having any type of device even one that was for purely communication not an easy tracking want no no not at all the record shows that officer said paid out when he came into the room to wait for the witnesses was not aware that the device was actually on but at the moment that the statement happened all of the all of have to be is knowingly and intelligently in order to eavesdrop on a conversation and here there was no conversation you know when we w i'm saying all i'm saying off court it was not used knowingly intelligently if you assume it's a eavesdropping and it device it does not qualify under the statute because there was no communication there is no conversation this was simply the defendant making a statement and one of the elements in the statute is they have to be a conversation as a defense counsel already defined it's a conversation between one or more people there's no conversation here this is the defendant simply making the statement his co defendants are talking to him so that's two under the third this is an absolute eavesdropping device that still doesn't qualify under the statute it's not a conversation where the use conversation is a noun as a transitive verb or as an intransitive verb it's not a conversation between two people to the defendant simply saying you should've kept your mouth shut and not talk to the every reasonable assurance that was made by the trial court to make sure that there was no bias or prejudice in fact there were five jurors that were stricken off the veneer panel when they raised their hands and said because of a person's immigration status i cannot be i cannot be fair and impartial only one juror actually remain i'm so the judge actually went above and beyond the duty asking the jurors can they be fair and impartial definition was somewhat narrow to say you can beat somebody but you can't make your