state before he confessed his word the police actually knew that he was the guy so happened twenty four hours again in your view that he should have been police escort though so but that was because of the location of other detective stastny and that was the evidence that we no member of the public would have been allowed to walk around the station on a company it's clear throughout question that ended the testimony except by the judge it was that he was homeless and he basically wanted to stay in a confined area that he knew was  police were investigating mr server during this time during the first twenty four hours or so rather were checking up when they're checking up on the story wouldn't necessarily tell them what they were doing that about twenty four hours in the evening of the fifth of october to search taking him around the back of a police car to look for people that confronted him when he couldn't find those people they took him out again to look for them they found someone  said to go see this testified that on the night of the fit he asked mr slater the stay in the area and to cooperate so if fact that that would have been a reason the person would be to communicate the res station but they also didn't say ok it's time for you to leave so we're the specifics of that period actually it's hard to say but once again that's that's running into this this is those circumstances are very different from the circumstance of someone who was just come to the police station and saw so you have an individual who's homeless he says he's not going back to the place where the the body has eyes an it's it's almost like the police can't win it's not like the worst in the state court thirty s or any other death and it's not like he tried so you know maybe they're just being nice to again to you know it's harmless and alcoholic and i was troubled and disabled with some mental weight and you know his friend  put in a public station where you can move around or even go to the bathroom without having to ask permission is there anywhere in the public area we station that which you have lain down and gone to sleep which she did for many many hours someone that they don't want to leave the station they don't want to be comfortable perceived by a reasonable person in that situation so will i go back to mr seriously in this room or in the backseat of a police car for forty eight hours now the first twenty four think they could we i tried to leave they told me i did this they know something we don't have any it granted this is not your typical reasonable person to testify knowing to testify but there's no testimony that indicates that there was any circumstance that led to a question about whether he was free to leave other than the statements that because they keep coming back to him when they find things that inconsistent with what he's telling them because investigating among other things rest she did after and that's going to be communicated when you're asking those kinds of questions you anything you tell us right here can be used against you but anything and that includes those two confessions which were not miscible who to determine stan does a police officer determine that and then said the future of mr sort of talking with his lawyer but none of that really says anything about whether he would be able to understand under vastly different circumstances at the police station and in custody however the record does not support that contention this individual defendant is the individual that was volunteer really with police officers beginning on the night of october phil defended defendant to say well may not have been a smart decision for him to do so that provides evidence that defendant was volunteer eat at the police station because he was receiving shelter a little because he was back and look again i want to correct a miscommunication there may have been in vet current i would argue that shows also that he's still there voluntarily at his suggestion he is offering to go back into the story voluntarily in the treatment that he's receiving from the police officers as remained consistent from shoes perspectives he's not being treated any differently at that point to signal to him that i am not all this early but the actors have had a free dialogue with defendant in trying to pin down what happened but detectives have testified that defendant was the only source of information that they had and it that way there were some discrepancies about the timeline and after communicating that with they took defendant defendant offered to go back in went back out into the new hood and it's very telling in this case raft in the fact that he's never asked officers at any point during his stay demonstrates that defendant was there voluntarily and explained to me the misunderstanding there was an initial ruling suppressing off three state bans the state filed a motion for reconsideration and the court reconsidering reconsidered and said ok first two but not  statements would not be suppressed under fourth amendment grounds and then the pro proceeded to the fifth amendment analysis for fourth amendment purposes the crew correctly found that probable cause existed prior suppressing the third statement under sieber that would require me to read brooks police fragrances deliberate misconduct from the beginning to rock entice this individual violation if you look at the totality of the circumstances on the officers when they were returned to the police station on october sixth at approximately nine thirty we were speaking to the friend and they confront defendant with standing the fact that you've already spoken to somebody else you don't have to speak to me cry baby forms are fine and that he did not have to continually participate in these movies and we do know somebody who has a very in lopez was intended to prevent where they have someone in custody and i want to rock them through their entire confession and then at the time say by the way here's your worries while we just go through that once again this is an interview that was ceased clearly incoherently incredibly that defendant was able to know really intelligently waive in the courts finding and that is not against them a defense weight of the evidence in for