1 Hunt's m ot ion to suppress statemen ts is n ot in cl uded i n the record. Fou rth Di vi si on August 19, 2010

No. 1-06- 0824

THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) Co o k C o un t y.

) v. ) No. 03 CR 11006 ) TAV AR ES HUNT, ) Ho no r ab le ) Fre d G. Suri

a, Jr., Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CENE VI LL

E de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In May 2002, Ta va res H unt, the def

endan t, was i nc arce rat ed in t he Co ok Co unt y jail on a “no ba i l ” ord er. On A pri l 13, 200 3, H

un t wa s a rre ste d f or th e m urder of Shak i r Be ckl ey , an d on May 27, 2003, a Coo k County gran d jury in dicted H unt and ch arge d h i m wi th 3 3 c oun

ts of murder (720 ILCS 5 /9-1(a )(1), (a)(3 ) (West 200 2)), 6 count s of att empted murder (720 I LCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (We st 2002 )), 2 co unt s of arm ed robbery

with a fi rearm (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West2002)), 1 count of aggravat ed battery wi th a f i rearm (720 ILCS 5/1 2-4.2 (W

est 200 2)), 7
cou n ts of atte m pte d a rm ed robbe ry (72 0 IL CS 5/1 8-2 (a)(Wes t 200 2)) , 1 c oun t of aggrav ated dis chargeof a

f i re ar m ( 720 IL CS 5/2 4-1.2(a )(2) (W est 200 2)), an

d 1 coun t of ag grav

ated b attery wi th a w eapon

(720 ILCS 5/1 2-4(b )(1) (W est 200 2)). On January 15, 2005, Hunt fi led a m ot ion to suppr ess stat emen ts, 1 and on Jan

uary 23, 2006, h e f

i l ed a m oti on to ex cl ude i n audi b l e ta pe reco rd ings t hat wer e made of his co nver sat ions1-06-0824

-2-

wi th My cal Davis on Jul

y 31, 2002, an

d August 6, 200 2. On Febr uary 22, 200 6, the

tria l court g ranted Hunt 's motions . The State appealed f rom the trial

court 's F ebruary

22, 2006, or der sup pr essing Hunt 's s t at eme nts an d the ta perec ordi

ng s th at w ere made of hi s c onv ers ati ons on Ju ly 31, 200 2, and o n Augu st 6, 200 2, and p re sent ed t wo issues for re view: ( 1) whet he r the trial courterred when i

t suppressed Hun

t's stat em en ts to D av i s w hi ch were m ade d uri ng the cou rs e of
a j udi ci al l y au thor ize d overh

ea r of Hu nt' s c onv ers ati on s w it h D av is , and (2) whether the trial courtabused i

ts discretion when

it exc lude d t he Hun

t-Da v i s ov

er h ea r ta pe s w h i ch th e S tate argued ar e only

"part ly in audibl e." On direct appeal, this court aff irm ed the trialcourt ’sorder. Peo ple v. Hunt , 381 Ill . App. 3d 790 (2 008 ). The Illino i s Sup re me Court reviewed the appel la te court 's j udgme

nt and af fi rmed it in p ar t , r ev er se d it in

p art , and r emanded the case for t his court to consider whet her Hunt ’s sta tem en ts sho uld be s up pr es se d o n fi fth am endm ent and McCaul

ey ( People v . McCauley , 163 I ll. 2d 414

(1994 )) groun

ds. Peo ple v. Hunt , 234 Ill . 2d 49 (20 09 ). Fo r t he fo ll owing reasons, we af f i rm . BACK GROUND The re cord r ev

ea l s th at m ul ti pl e h eari ngs were held on t he defen dant's motion to suppress stat em en ts an d on hi s m oti on to e

xc l ude i na udi bl e re cord i ng s. B el ow i s a su m mary of th e testim ony tha t is rel evan t t o a resolution of the i

ssues i n thi s case. Lieut enant Jo sep h P. Mur phy Li eu te nant Jo sep h P. Mur phy t est ifi ed t hat in 200 2, he wa s ass igned a s t he co mmanding off ic er of the Ch i cago p o lice de pa r t me nt’s col d case squad. He testif ie d that in 2002 h

e worked1-06-0824

-3-

wi th Det ect ive Jo hn Mur ra y and se ver al ot her officer s in the co ld cas e sq uad . Lieu t enant Mur phy also st at ed t hat ove r a per iod of mo nt hs pr ior t o J uly 31, 200 2, he wo rk ed w ith Ass ista nt State's Attorne y Hove y on the i nv esti gation of Sha ki r Beckley 's m urder. Lieut enant Murphy

recalle d que st io ning T av ar es Hu nt se ve r al t imes in 2 00 2 a bo ut Sh ak ir Beckley’s m urder. H e te sti

f i ed th at h i s f i rs t me et ing wit h Hunt was in May 200 2. Lieut enant M ur phy's col d cas e sq

uad detecti

ve s pi cked Hun t up f rom th e Cook Coun

ty j ail , whereHunt wa s in carceratedon an unr elated ch arge. T he l i euten an t exp l ai ne d tha t there was a

def i ni te proced ure f ortaking c

ustody of Hun

t from the Cook County j ai l. A ccording to the li

eutenan t, the Ch ic ago police t o ld

Co o k C o un t y jail o ffic ials t ha t t he y w er e t aking cus t od y of Hu nt for an “invest igat ive pr o ce du r e” an d t ha t t he y wo uld r emo ve him fr o m t he jail. Lieut enant Mu r

ph y t es t ifie d that his

off ic ers brought Hunt to the Chi cago poli ce dep ar t ment's Area 4 poli

ce station f

or questionin

g on more than one occas ion b egi nni ng i n midMay 2002. He stated, “[W]e went over there, we picked h im up, advi sed hi

m of hi s righ ts . Then
we talked to him

about our in

vestigation, unrel

ated to the o ne he i s in cus t od y for. ” Lieu t enant Mur phy further tes tifi

ed that hi s detect iv

es read Hunt his Mi

randa ( Mirand a v. Arizo na , 384 U.S. 436, 16 L . E d. 2d 6 94, 86 S . C t . 1 602 (1 966 )) right s at the Area 4 po lice st at ion and t hat Hunt wai ved his r igh t s be fo r e t alk ing wit h t he li euten ant and other off ic ers about the Shaki

r Beckl ey
m urder. Li

eu ten an t Murp hy als o t es t ified t ha t Hu nt co nse nt ed t o a p o lygr ap h e xa minat io n in May 2002 and that Hunt m

ay have been

fi ngerpri nted wh en h e s pe n t t he n

igh t at t he A

rea 4 police station i

n May 2002. So met ime i

n J ul y 2002, Li euten

an t Murph y testi f i ed that he

be gan to workwi th Davis,1-06-0824

2 It should be

noted that Det ective Murray testifi ed at the suppression heari ng that Judge McSweene

y-M oor e approved the overhear on Jul y 30, 2002. -4- another inmate inca rc er at ed a t t he Co ok Co unt y jail , o n t he Sha kir B eck ley murde r invest igat ion. Lieut enant Murphy

testifi ed that Davi s told hi

m that Hunt ha

d ma d e incr iminat ing st at eme nt s in
a co nve rs at io n ab o ut t he B ec kle y mur de r a nd t he lie ut ena nt as ke d D avis if h e could get Hu n t to repeat t hos e st at ement s. L ieut enant Mur phy t est ifi ed t hat he t old Davis “his o pt ions ” be for e he agreed to wear a wi

re fo r a ju dic ia lly

aut hor ized o ver hear . Ac co rd ing t o L ieut enant Mur phy, he and Assi stant Stat e's A

tt orney Hove

y h ad num erous conversations

about the B ec kle

y invest igat ion, t hat t hey event ua lly decided t o use Davis, and that he and Assistant St ate ’s Atto rney Hovey planned the overhears of Hunt's conv

ersations. Li

eutenant Murphy

stated t hat
on or a b out J ul y 17 , 20 02 , hi s c old c as e s qu ad detecti v es re mov ed Hu n t f rom th e C ook C ou n

ty j ail and br ought h i m to the A rea 4 p oli ce station f or a li ne up. The Jul y 31, 2002, Overhear Lieut enant Mur phy t est ifi ed t hat on J ul y 3 1, 2002, he spent most of that day wi th Davis, t he in form ant. Lie utenan t Mu rph y sta ted tha t he took Da vi s to c ourt to g et j udi

ci al au thor iza ti on f orthe pla nne d overhear on Jul

y 31 , 2002. 2 Acco rd ing t o L ieut enant Mur phy, he and D avis we nt dir ec t ly fr o m co ur t t o t he Ar ea 4 p o lice st at io n, wh er e t he po lice wir ed Da vis in “ab o ut fi ve
m i n ute s” an d put h i m i n an i n ter v i ew room wi th Hu n t. Lieut enant Mu r

ph y fur t he rt es t if

i ed th at D ete cti

ve Mu rra y rem ove d H un t f rom the Cook Cou n ty jail earlier o n J uly

31, 2002, and brought hi m to the Area 4 poli

ce station f

or t he pl ann ed
ove rhe ar. Acco rd ing t o L ieut enant Mur phy, H unt was put in an inter view r oo m with Davi s1-06-0824

-5-

arou nd 3 p.m. on Jul

y 31, 2002, an

d no one el se was al

lowed i n the room wi

th the two me n . Lieut enant Murphy

testifi ed that the July

31, 2002, overhear bega n a t 3 p
. m. and that i

t ended shortl y af ter 4 p .m . that day. L i eu

ten an t Mu rp h y i n siste d th at H un t wa s b rough t to the Area 4 police st at ion o n July 31, 200 2, “st rict ly f or pur po ses o f par t icipat ion in a line-u p” a nd fo r t he overh ear. Fi nal ly , the li eutenant testif

ie d that he m

onitored the overhear sess ions on Jul y 31, 2002, and on A

ugus t 6, 2 002 , an

d that n ei the r he n or an y of hi s dete cti ve s s poke to Hun t on eithe r o f tho se d ays abo ut t he Sha kir B eck ley investiga t ion. Meetin g Wi th Hunt's A

tt orney Whil e Hunt was i

n the room wi

th Davis, Li eutenant Murphy testifi ed that he a

nd hi s detectives were i n a noth er r oom moni tori ng Hu nt' s c onv ers ati on. W he n h e took a b rea k f rom monit or ingHunt's conv

ersation, Li

eutenant Mur

phy t es t ifi ed t hat he st epp ed o ut of t he r oo m and
som eon e tol d h i m th at a pu b l i c def en der, Ch ri sto ph er A n ders on , w as

l ooki n g f or H un t. Lie ut enant Murphy

me t with Mr. An

derson, who to ld h

im that he represented Hu

nt on a n unrelatedcharge. M

r. An ders on asked hi

m wh y Hunt was at t he Are a 4 p olice s t at ion and Lieut enant Murphy

testifi ed that he told Mr. Ande rson that there was an ongoin g i nve st iga t io n and that a l

i ne up wa s se

t. L ieut enant Mur phy re called t hat Mr. Ander so n t old him that he wanted to s ee h i s c l i en t an d th at h e w an ted to b e pre se

n t du ri n g a n y l i n eu ps . Acc ordi

n g to Lieut enant Murphy

, he s to pp ed t he o ve rhe ar an d M r . And er so n w as allo we d t o mee t wit h his cl i en t. At t he co nc lu sio n o f H un t 's mee t ing wit h M r . And er so n, Lie ut en an t Mu r ph y test if ie d that Mr. Ander so n t old t he lieut enant and t he o t her officer s pr ese nt t hat he was inv ok ing Hunt 's right to remai n si le nt and to consult wi

th counsel

durin g questioni

ng.1-06-0824

-6- The Augus

t 6, 2002, Overhe ar Lieut enant Mur phy t est ifi ed t hat only o ne o ver hear was do ne o n J ul y 31, 2002. Ho wever, he f

urther test if

ie d that t wo separate o verhea rs were done of Hun

t and Da vis ’
co nver sat ions at t he Are a 4 p olice s t at ion o n Augu st 6, 200 2, one in the mo rning a nd o ne in the l ate af ternoon . He f

urthe r testi f i ed that on A

ugust 6, 2002, n

o Chi cago pol i ce of f i cers tri ed to speak with Hun

t about the Shaki

r B eck ley murde r. Lieut enant Mur phy also t est ifi ed t hat he reviewed the o verhea

r tapes of con ve rs ati ons tha t he ha d m oni tored be twe en Da vi s a nd Hu nt on Ju ly 31 , 20 02 , an d o n Au gu st 6, 20 02
. Ac co r din g t o Lie ute nan t Murphy, the tapes h

e reviewed
ac cu r at ely

re flect ed t he co nver sat ions t hat he monit or ed o n July 31, 200 2, and on August 6, 2002. Ta var es H unt Tavares Hun t t estif

ie d that he was arrested on May 14, 2002, and l ocked up in the C oo k Cou n ty jail f or an u nrel ated c ha

rge. Hu nt testi f i ed that on Ma

y 18, 200 2, Ch

i cago pol i ce of f i cers removed hi m f rom t he Cook County j ai l a

nd transf erred hi m i n ha ndcuf fs to the Area 4 polic e st at ion. Wh

en h e got t o t he A

rea 4 poli ce s t at ion o n May 18 , 2 002 , H unt re called t hat so meone tol d hi m that he was there f

or interrogation. Hunt test if ie d that he r ecogni zed the p rior witness (Lieu t enant Murphy) as one of the offi cers p re sent at t he Ar ea 4 poli ce station on May

18, 2002. Hunt stated t hat he di

d not remem

ber the na

me s of the other police off ic ers that questioned

hi m on May 18, 2002, about t he m

urder they were i

nve stigati ng. Hunt testif

ie d t h at he r ep ea t ed ly tol d t he o ffi cer s t hat he did no t kno w anyo ne in the pict ur es t hey sho wed him and t hat he had no knowle dge of and h

ad not heard any

thin g about the murder they

were in vestigating.1-06-0824

-7-

Hunt r ec alle d t elli ng t he po lice o n M ay 18, 20 02 , t ha t he wo uld no t t alk wit ho ut his la wyer b ei n g p re se n t but the police contin ued to quest ion h

im . Hunt testifi

ed that after questioni ng, h e wa s taken f

or a po ly graph test on May 18, 2002, an d on the nex

t day, May

19, 2002, he was f

in gerprin ted by the Chi cago poli ce be f

ore b ei n g ta ken b ack to th

e C ook C oun

ty jail. Hunt t es t if

i ed th at, at t he en d o f Ju ne 20 02 , he met Ch r ist o ph er And er so n, his p ub lic def ender, i n c ourt on the

unr e la ted ca se. Hunt re called s pea king t o M r. Ander so n abo ut t he Chi cago police “sn

atchi ng hi m” out of j ai l to in

terro gate hi

m a bout another case. H unt further testifi ed that he asked f

or Mr. Anderson's

advi ce abo ut t he police questioni ng hi m. Hun t recall ed that Mr. Ander so n t old him not t o t alk t o t he po lice unless a lawyer w as t her e. Hunt al so s ta ted t ha t he as ke d M r . And er so n fo rhis ph o ne nu mbe rt ha t da y. Hunt r ec all ed t ha t on J uly 18, 200 2, t he Chica go po lice aga in remo ved him fro m the Cook Co un t y ja il

and took him

to the Area 4 polic e station. Hunt could n ot remem ber the na me s of t he o t he rde t ec t ive s w ho qu es t io ne d h im t ha t da y, b ut he did r ec all t ha t he t o ld th em th at he did not wa

nt to tal k ab out thei

r i nv esti gation an d tha t he wan ted to talk

wi th a l awy er. Hunt te stif

ie d that on July

31, 2002, Coo k County j ai l gua rds told hi

m that the Ch

ic a g o po li ce wer e co ming to get him to put him i n a lineup. Hunt ask ed t he Co ok Co unt y guar ds if he
co uld ma ke a phone cal

l, the guards perm

itted hi m to make

a call , a nd he c alled his lawyer . H unt stated th at h

e l ef t a v oi ce mai l mes sa ge f or M r. A n ders on tel l i n g h i m th at t he Chic ago police were taking h im back to the Area 4 po lice s t at io n fo r a l i n eu p, a n d h e a sk ed Mr . A n ders on to
co me to t he st at ion.1-06-0824

3 Hunt waived his at t or ney-client pr ivil ege t o his p ublic defend er 's no t es c ove ring t he period f rom thei r fi rst meeti ng on Jun e 28, 2002, until

he i nvoked h is righ ts, at t he A

rea 4 police -8- Af ter he ca ll

ed his lawy

er on Jul y 31, 2002, the Ch

ic ago polic e too k Hunt in han dcuf fs t o t he Area 4 poli

ce station, where h

e was put in

to a roo m wi

th a ma n wh o iden tif ie d h ims el f as My cal Da vi s. H un t tes ti f i ed tha t he ne ve r kn ew Da vi s b ef ore th e p ol i ceput th

em i n th at room t og et he ro n Ju ly 31 , 20 02
. As H un t r ec alle d t he inc ide nt , he wa s in t ha t r o o m alo ne wit h D av is f orabout an hour on Jul

y 31, 2002. Hun

t t estif ie d that when h

e saw hi s publ ic def en der, l ater on Jul y 31, 2002, at

the A rea 4 pol i cesta ti on, Mr . A

nd ers on tol d the p ol i cetha

t Hun t woul d n ot t alk to th em wi th out an attor ney

be i ng pre sent d uri ng que sti oni ng . Hu nt rec al l ed tel l i ng the pol i ceon Jul y 31, 2002, in h

is la wyer's presen

ce, that he wanted to remai n si le nt and that

he wa nt ed hi s la wyer present durin

g any questioni ng. Hunt testified t ha t a w ee k la t er , o n Au gu st 6, 20 02 , t he Ch ica go po lice r emo ve d h im ag ain fr o m the

Cook Cou nty j ai l an d took h i m to the A rea 4 pol i cesta ti on. Hu nt rec al l ed tha t on that day the police, for the second tim e, put him in a r o o m wit h D av i s a nd he wa s h el d there f or hours this tim e. Hunt als o t estif

ie d that he di d not know t hat Davis was weari ng a wi re b ut h e
r ec alle d e ve nt ua lly t elli ng Da vis t o st o p t alk ing t o him t ha t da y. Publ i c D ef

en der Ch ri stop he r A nd ers on Chri stopherAnderson test if ied that in Jun

e 2002, he was t he pu bli c def en der a ss i gn

ed to Judge Garcia

's courtro om an

d that Hunt's case was

assi gned to him

at arraignm

ent on June 28, 2002. Mr. Ander so n r ecal le d s pea king wit h Hunt in the lo cku p o n June 28, 200 2, and t hat he had m ade contemporaneous n

ot es 3 of h i s c on v er sa ti on s wi th Hu n t.1-06-0824

station on Jul

y 31, 2002. Mr. An

derson's s ix

pages of n

ot es were m

arked as People' s Group E xhib it 2, bu t t he y we r e n o t inc lud ed in t he r ec o r d o n app ea l. -9- Mr. Anderso n testif

i ed that on Ju

ne 28, 200 2, Hun

t told h i m that the Ch i cago pol i ce we re t alking t o him ab o ut an un r ela t ed , un ch ar ge d ma t ter, and he told Hunt not to talk to t he polic e. On Jul y 12, 200 2, aga

i n i n J udge Garc i a' s l

ockup, H unt told Mr. A

nde rson that the pol i ce we

re st ill tryi ng to t al k with h im . Mr. Anderson testif

ie d that he co uld not discu ss t he mat t er in the lockup wi th ot hers presen

t but he stated t hat he agai n told Hunt not to talk to t he polic e. Mr. An derson further testif

ie d that on July

31, 2002, he got a voice m ai l m essage f ro m Hunt t elling him

t hat t he Chica go po lice wer e r emoving him fro m the C oo k Co unt y jail and t aking hi m to t he Area 4 police stat ion. Next, Mr. Anderson test i f i ed th at he cal

le d the Area 4 police st at io n an d w as t o ld t hat Hu nt wa s t her e. Mr . A nde rs o n t es t ified, fr om his contemporaneous notes, as to the events th at occurre d on J

ul y 31, 200 2. A ccordi

ng to Mr. Ander so n, he arri

ved at the Area 4pol

i cesta ti on at 3: 14 p. m. o n Ju ly 31 , 20 02 , bu t t he po lice did not permi t him to me et with hi

s cl ie nt, Hunt, until

4:02 p. m . A f

ter m ee ting w

i th Hun t, Mr. A nd ers on told L i eu

ten an t Mu rp h y an d D ete cti v e M ur ra y th at H un t w as i n v oki n g h i s r i gh t to
r ema in silent a nd t o ha ve co unse l pre sent dur ing qu est ioning. Finally , Mr . And er so n t old t he pol i ce on Ju l y 31 , 20 02 , that h

e w an ted to b e pre se

n t at a n y l i n eu psi n v ol v i n g H un t. Detective John

Murray Th e St at e w as allo we d t o ca ll Chic ag o po lice de t ec t ive Jo hn M ur r ay a s a r eb ut t al w it nes s and he testif

ie d that in May

of 2002, he was

assi gned to th e C hic ag o po lice de pa rt men t 's c o ld
case uni t. He recalled that in M ay 2002, h e was worki ng on the Sh aki r Beckley

m urder.1-06-0824

-10-

Det ect iveMu

rra y sta ted tha t on May 17, 200 2, h

e m ade the a rra ng em en ts to re move Hu nt f rom t he Cook Cou nty j ai l so th at he c oul

d bri ng hi m to the A rea 4 pol i ce station the nex

t day. He al so test if ie d that on May

18, 200 2, h

e a nd De tec ti ve Prz ep i ora took

Hu nt f rom the Cook Cou n ty jailan d d r o ve him t o t he Ar ea 4 p o li ce station. De t ect ive Mur ra y admitt ed t hat Hunt had no choi ce about bei

ng brought to t he A

rea 4 police station on May 18, 2002. Th e M ay 18, 200 2, P ol i ceIn

terroga ti on Det ect iveMur phy t est ifi ed t hat on t he mor ning

o f M ay 18, 200 2, he and Det ect ive Przep i orastarted q

ues tion i ng H unt a t the A rea 4 p oli ce station
. De te ctive

Murray reca

ll ed that he int ervi ewed Hunt for approxim ately 45 mi nutes that morni

ng. Detective

Murray testi fi

ed that
on M ay 18 , 2 002 , H unt denied any involvement in the S hakir Bec kley murd er and t hat Hunt cl ai me d t o hav e a n alibi. De t ec t ive M ur ra y also t es t ifi ed t ha t he and the o ther co ld case detectives did n ot bel

ie ve wh at Hunt was say

in g, so Detect iv

e Murray asked Hunt to t ake a p oly graph test. Ac cordi

ng to Detecti

ve Murra y , Hun t agree d to take the

pol y graph, s o he an d Det ect ivePr zep ior a t oo k Hu nt t o t he Ho man Sq uar e st at ion f or t he po ly

graph test. Detect iv

es Przep i oraand Murray

brought Hunt back to t he A rea 4 police station af

ter t he tes t on May

18, 2002. A fterre t ur ning to the Area 4 polic e station f rom the poly

graph test on May 18, 2002, Detectives

Przepiora and M

urray i nterviewed Hunt agai

n f or appr oxim

atel y 45 m

in utes. Det ect iveMurray test i f

i ed that Hun

t deni ed an

y i nv olv em en t in the B eckl

ey m urder “al l day .” Because the off

ic ers' questionin

g went i nto t he n igh t and becaus e the o ff

ic e rs wa nte d to ques ti on Hunt further, Detective

Murray s

tated t hat he an

d the other detect iv

es deci ded to keep H un

t a t1-06-0824

4 It sho uld be no t ed t hat Lieut enant Mur phy t est ifi ed t hat t he o ver hear was app ro ved by
-11- the Area 4 polic e station overni ght on May

18, 2002. Th e M ay 19, 200 2, P ol i ceIn

terroga ti on Det ect iveMu rr ay t es t ified t ha t o n Ma y 19 , 20 02 , t he ne xt da y, h e a nd De t ec t iv e Przep i oraint ervi ewed Hu nt a gai n. Herec al

l ed tha t Li eu ten an t Mu rph y also i nte rvi ew ed Hu nt on May 19, 2002. Detect iv

e Murray testifi ed that Hunt continue d to d eny any involvement in the
cr ime ab o ut wh ich he wa s be ing qu es t io ne d. De t ec t ive Mu rr ay t es t ifie d th at Hun t w as returned to Cook Co unty j ai l l

ater on May 19, 2002. T he Ju ly 16 , 20 02 , Me et ing Wit h P o lice I nfo rman t Da vis Det ect iveMu

rra y sta ted tha t Da vi s tol d h i m an d other p ol i ceof

ficer s on Jul

y 16, 2002, that he kn

ew Hunt and that

Hunt was involved in t he Sha kir B eck ley murde r. Davis a lso t old t he off i cers th at he and Hunt had

spo ken a bou t t he Be ckley mur der and t hat Hunt had s aid t hat he
was t h e “gu

y ” wi th th e ri f l e. Da v i s a l so t old th

e p oli ce th at h e th oug h t h e c oul d g et Hun t t o
r epeatthe c onversa

tion ab out the Be ckl

ey m urder. A f ter the c onversa

tion wi th Da vis, De t ec t iv e Murray t est ifi ed t hat he and t he o t her officer s de cided t o s et up a n ove rhe ar using Davi s as t he
co ns en t ing pa rt y. On Ju ly 30 , 20 02 , T he Ju dg e M ee t s Wit h D av is Det ect iveMurray testi fi

ed that, o n Jul

y 30, 2002, he

wa s present when

Davis was taken to the State 's A ttorn ey 's of f i ceby Ch i cago pol i ceof f i cers to si gn asthe consen tin g party for t he overh ear. Detective Murray

recalle d that Davi s was taken b efore Judge McSwe en ey -Moore f or review of the appl

ic ation f or t he eav esdroppin g order o n that sam

e day , July

30, 2002. 41-06-0824

Judge McSween

ey-Moor e on Jul

y 31, 2002. -12- The Jul y 31, 2002, Overhear Det ect iveMurray testi fi

ed that on July

31, 2002, he and Detectiv e Prze p iora rem

oved Hunt f r om t he Co ok Co unt y jail ar ou nd no on a nd t oo k him to t he Are a 4 p olice s t at ion. Det ect iveMu

rra y wa s c erta

i n th at n one of the col d c as e o ffi ce r s in t er vie we d H un t t ha t da y. Det ect iveMurray reca

lled that he a nd h

i s team put Hun t in an i nterv i ew room and lef t hi m there alone for ab out th

re e h our s. The of

f i cer al so t esti f

i ed th at H un t wa s n ot h an dcuf f ed wh i l e i n th e i nterv i ew room that da y and tha t he g av e Hun

t food an d water. Det ect iveMu

rra y testi f i ed th at a t ab out 2 :4 5 p .m . on

Ju l y 31 , 20 02 , D av

i s was b rough t t o t he Area 4 poli

ce station. He al so stat ed that an o t her officer t oo k Da vis into a r oo m and pu t t he wi re on him. Detective Murray

testifi ed further that he an

d hi s team put Davi

s i n the i nterview room wi th Hu n t on Ju l y 31 , 20 02 . O n ce

Da v i s e n tered th e room

wi th Hu n t, D ete cti ve Murra

y stated t hat he we nt into ano t her ro om t o list en t o t he co nv ers ation between Hunt and Davis. Det ect iveMu rr ay r ec alled t hat Lieu t ena nt Mu rp hy and ano t her o ff ic e r w ere i

n a room wi th Da vis on Jul

y 31, 2002. A

t some poin

t du ring the overhe ar, Detect iv e Murray recalle d that Lieut enant Murphy

le ft the room. Accordin g to Detective Murray, wh en Lieu t enant Mur phy
ca me back , t hey listene d a bit mor e t o t he co nver sat ion bet wee n H unt a nd D avi s b ef

ore Li euten ant Murphy

ended the overh

ear. Short ly

thereafter, Lieutenant Murphy to ld De tect iv e Murray t hat a publ

ic defen der was there to see Hunt. After an h our o n Jul

y 31, 2002, Detec tiv e Murray testi fi

ed that the overhear was stopped.1-06-0824

5 We no t e t hat Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 6 08 p ro vides t hat t he r eco rd on a ppe al must co nt ain the "eaves dropping orders, and an y s im il ar documen

ts." 210 Ill . 2d R. 608(a)(6). The State had
cus t od y of t he ea vesd ro pping app licatio n and o rd er s but failed t o includ e t he ea vesd ro pping appli cation and order s in

the reco rd as required by the rules.

-13- Meetin g Wi th Hunt's A

tt orney Det ect iveMurray testi fi

ed that he m

et pu bl ic defen

der Chri stopher Anderson at the Area 4 po lice st at io n a ft er Mr
. And er so n c o ns ul t ed wit h H un t in a n in t er vie w r o o m o n J ul y 3 1, 200 2. Mr. Ander so n to ld De tec t ive Mu rr ay t ha t Hu nt ha d b ee n a dv ise d t o r ema in sile nt an d n o t t o t alk to the p o lic e wit hou t his lawyer be ing pr ese nt . At t hat t ime, De t ect ive Mur ra y aske d Hu nt if he
was invok ing his right s. Ac co rd ing t o D et ect ive Mur ra y, Hu nt said “y es. ” Fi nally, Det ect ive Murray testifi ed th at the f

i rs t ti me H un t i nv oke d h i s ri gh ts w asaf ter th e overh ea r wa s stoppe d on Jul y 31, 2002. Appl

ic ation f or Use of Eavesdroppin

g Devi ce Unse al ed On Ja nua ry 1 5, 20 04 , t he t ria l co ur t o rd er ed t he S t at e's At t o rn ey's o ff ic e t o u nsea l the
envel opes and origi

nal app l ic ation f

or t he j udic ia

ll y a uthorized use of

an eav esdroppin g devi ce. The St at e' s At t o rne y's o ffice wa s a lso o r de r ed t o r et ain cu st o dy o f t he o r igin al tapes and app licatio n. 5 The June 27, 200 5, Hea ring The parties f

irst argued the m eri

ts of Hunt 's mot ion t o s upp re ss o n June 27, 200 5. The trial court hel d: “It i s c l ea r that pr io r t o Ju ly

31st, defendan

t had indi cated he did not wish1-06-0824

-14- t o sp ea k to the poli

ce regardin

g this case. Or wanted to have hi s lawy er wi th h i m , whi chev er, however y ou wi sh to phras e i

t.” The trial cour t sta

te d tha t the i ssue pres en

ted was not whethe

r the re corded s

tatem en ts were
vo lunt ar y, but t he l ega l ef fect of Mr. Anderson's representat ion of Hunt on an uni ndicted case wherecounsel

had act ually appe are d at the Area 4 poli ce station at 3:14 p.m. on Jul y 31, 2002, and askedrepe ate dl

y to s pe ak wi th h i s c l i en t. Th e tr i al cou rt th en h el d th at H un t h ad a ri gh t t o speak wit h his at t o rne y o n Ju ly 31, 2002 , withi

n a reasonable

tim e after hi s atto rney had arri ved at the Area 4 polic e station, and b ec ause Hunt's a tt orney was not present on August 6, 2002, when Hunt spoke with Dav

is , that t hose Aug

us t 6, 20 02 , st at eme nt s w er e f r ee ly g ive n. Fin ally, t he trial court suppressed the l

ast 45 mi nutes of the Jul

y 31, 2002 , t ape but deni ed Hu nt' s m oti on to suppress the statemen

ts recorded o n the A

ugust 6, 2002, t ape. The July 12, 200 5, Hea ring On July 12, 2005 , on its o wnm otion , the tri

al court va cated i ts Jun e 27, 2 005, orde

r. Af ter f ur th er con si dera ti on , the tr

i al cou rt s tate d th

at i t wa s s atisf

i ed th at Mi randa warn i ngs were not at issue in the case. The trial

court expresse d c on ce rn ab out w h at, i f an y , pr of es si on al du ty
an as sist ant St at e's At t or ney has t o no t see k fur t her informat ion wit hou t t he pr ese nce o f defens e counsel fro m a per so n who has a ske d t hat his co unse l be pr ese nt dur ing furt her que st ioni ng . Theref ore, af ter v ac ati n g i ts J un e 2 7, 2 00 5, o rd er , the trial cour t ent er ed a nd co nt inued t he de f en da n t' s m oti on s to su

pp re ss f or f ur th er argu m en t. The Febr uar y 15, 200 6, Hea ring On Jan uary 23, 200 6, Hu nt file d hi s motion to excl ude inaudi

ble recor din

gs.1-06-0824

-15-

Ap pr o ximat ely

one m onth l ater, on F ebruary

15, 200 6, the

tri al co urt heard argumen

ts focused
on the inaudi

bili ty of the Ju ly

31, 2002, and t he Au gu st 6, 20 02 , t ap es . T he co ur t fo un d t ha t all of the tapes were in

audi ble and that they

would not be adm i

tted . Th e tr i al cou rt th en of f ered to review in camera those port ions of the tapes thatthe assi stant Stat e's A tt orney cons ide

red audi ble. The assis

tant S tat e's Atto rney

dec li ned the trial

court 's of

fer an d requested that t he trial court ad mi t t he Jul

y 31, 2002, an

d August 6, 2002, tapes in their en tirety. The tri al

judge found that the Jul

y 31, 2002, an

d August 6, 2002, tapes were in audi ble, but deferred en

try of a f in al order at th e S tate ' s req

ue st. The Febr uar y 22, 200 6, Hea ring On Febr uar y 22, 200 6, t he tri al cou rt re su med th e h ea ri n g on th e def en da n t' s m oti on to suppress statem

en ts an d en tered i ts sup pres si on order. A

f ter the tri

al courtentered it s su ppr es si on order , the a ss i sta

n t Sta te' s A tto r ne y fil ed a notice of

substantial

im pai rmen t and a noti ce of appe al f rom th e tri al court's Feb ruary 22, 200 6, order. A ppe l l ateCou

rt’ s D ec i si

on On March 27, 2008, thi s court affi rmed the tri al

court ’s order. First, thi s cour t he ld th at, pur sua nt t o s ect ion 1 9.5 of the County Ja il Act (730 ILCS 125/19.5 (West 2002)) and Peo ple v. Cam pa , 217 Il

l . 2d 243 (2005 ), a

jud icia l order is requi

red to transfer cus

to dy of a pretrial detain ee f rom th e custo dy o f

the sh eri f f to the cu stod y of the pol i cef or th e purp ose

of invest igat ingan

unr elated cr i me. Hunt , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 805. Next, t hi s court held that H unt
was il legal ly arrest ed when he was remove d fro m the county j ai l on J uly 31, 2002, and August 6, 2002, without an arrest warran t or a cou rt order. Hunt , 381 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 806. Th

i s court1-06-0824

-16-

further hel d that Hu nt’s st atemen

ts to Da v i s woul d n ot h av e b een made b ut f or th e i l l eg al ar re sts
an d that Hunt's stateme

nts to Davis we

re the frui ts of the il

le gal arrests that preceded Hunt's trips to t he po lice st at ion o n July 31, 20 02, an d A ugust 6, 2002. Hunt , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 807. Fin ally, this

court hel d that t he recordin

gs were properly

supp ressed b ec au se

th ey wereth e f

ru i ts of Hun t’s i l l egal arrest and

be caus e the

recordi ngs were i na udi bl e. Hu nt , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 808- 09. Ill i noi s S upr em e C ourt’ s D ec i si

on Fi rs t, t he I llino is S up r eme Co ur t he ld t ha t t he ap pe ll ate cou rt di d n ot exce ed the sc opeof it s re vie w o n in t er locu t or y appe al beca use t he t rial co ur t sup pr esse d all of t he st at ement s and b oth recordi ngs . Hunt , 23 4 I ll. 2 d a t 58
. Ne xt , t he I llino is S up r eme Court he l d tha t “se cti on 19.5 of th e [ Coo k C oun

ty] Act i ndi ca tes th e l eg i sl atu redi d n ot i n ten d to req ui rea j udi ci

al order to releasea p ri son

er to l aw en f orce men t of f i ci als or the State ’s A ttorn ey f or pu rpos e of invest igat ingan un

related cri

mi nal ma tt er .” Hu nt , 23 4 I ll. 2 d a t 64
. Ne xt , t he I llino is S up r eme Courthel d th at s ection 19.5 of the County Jail A ct permi ts prisoner transf

ers wi thout the need f ora court ord er , a nd r ever sed t hat po rt ion o f the app ellate co ur t ’s judg ment t hat affirmed t he trial cour t’s suppress i on of

al l of H unt’ s statemen

ts on f ourth am endm en t grounds
. Hunt , 234 I ll. 2d at 65 . H owever , th e Il l i noi s S upr em e C ourt af

f i rm ed the appe l l atecou

rt’ s s uppres si on of t he July 31, 200 2, and Au gus t 6, 200 2, re co rd ings o n t hegrou nd th at the tap e rec ordi

ngs were in audi ble. Hunt , 23 4 I l l . 2d

at 6 6. T

h eref ore , the I l l i

n oi s S up re me C our

t aff irm ed in pa rt, reversed i n p art, an

d re man de d the c as e to the a

ppe l l atecou

rt to a dd re ss th e fol

lowi ng i ssue: whether Hunt 's st at ement s sho uld be s upp re ssed on f if th amen dme

nt and McCaul

ey gro unds.1-06-0824

-17-

Hunt , 234 Il

l . 2d at 67
. AN AL YSIS T his cour t has been di

recte d to deter mi

ne whether Hunt's stat emen ts w ou ld b e suppressed under the f i f th am endm en t or unde

r McCaul

ey . We not e t hat t he fi fth and f our tee n th A men dm en ts of th e U n i ted Sta tes Con sti tut ion a n d a rt icle I , se ct io n 1 0, o f t he I llino is Consti tution gu ar ant ee de fe ndant s the ri ght agai nst self-i ncri mi nation. U.S. Const., amen ds. V, XIV; Il l . C on st. 1970, art. I , §10. The righ t against self

-in crim in ation i ncl udes the right to an at t o rne y. Ed war ds v. Arizo na , 451 U. S. 477, 4 85-86 , 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, 387, 101 S . Ct. 1880, 1885 ( 1981) (“The Fifth Amendment right ident ifi ed in Mi randa is the righ t t o have counse l pr ese nt at any cust od ial i nte rr og at ion”); McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d a t 421 . H ow ever , a defend ant
ma y waive t he r ight aga ins t self-inc rim in ation, and theref

ore t he ri ght to an attor ney

, provided that t he wa iver is vo lunt ar y, kno wing , an d i ntel l i gen t. McCaul

ey , 1 63 I ll. 2d a t 421 , c iting Pe o ple v. Evans , 125 Ill . 2d 50, 74 ( 198 8) . “I n det er mini ng whe t her a de fendant kno wingly and int ellig en t ly

w aived his r ight t o a n at t or ney, a co ur t must co nsider t he t ot ality o f the circumstances, in

cl udin g the c ha ra ct er istics of t he de fendant and t he de t ails of t he inte rr og at ion, withoutone ci

rcumstance or factor cont rollin g.” McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 421-22, ci ting Pe o ple
v. Re id , 136 Ill . 2d 27, 54-55 (1990 ). The State must prove, by a preponderance of

the evi dence, that the defe

ndan t knowingl

y, i ntellig en t ly, and vol

unta ri l y wai ve d hi s or her ri

ghts
. McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 422, citing Re id , 136 Ill . 2d at 51. Standard of Revi

ew The review of a trial

court ’s rul

in g on a m

ot ion to suppress ev

ide nce pres en

ts mi xed1-06-0824

-18-

que st ions of l

aw an d f act. People v . Pitma

n , 211 Il l. 2d 50 2, 512 (2004). T he Un ited States Su pr eme Court has h

el d that whil

e a revi ewi ng c ourt shoul d c areful

ly review the fa

ctual f in din gs and giv e d ue we igh t t o t he t r ial c o ur t ’s infe r en ce s fr o m t ho se fa cts , “ de term i na ti ons of
r ea so nable suspici on and probabl e cause sh

ould be reviewed de no vo on appeal .” Or nelas v. Uni ted Stat es , 517 U .S. 690, 6 99, 134 L. E d. 2 d 91 1, 9 20, 116 S. Ct . 16 57, 166 3 (1 996 ); Pe o ple
v. Sorens on , 196 Il

l . 2d 425 , 431 (2 001). The ref ore, w e wi ll

accord great weigh

t t o t he trial
co ur t 's fac t ua l finding s a nd w ill only r eve rs e if t hey a re ag ains t t he ma nifes t we ight o f t h e evi dence, but we will

review de novo t he ult imate q ues t ion o f the S t at e's leg al challenge t o t he tria l court's order gra nti ng H unt' s m otion s to suppress . Sorens on , 196 Ill . 2d at 431. Fifth Amendment In Mi randa , t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Cou rt h el d that t he f

if th ame ndm ent priv il ege agains t self-i ncri mi nation prohi

bi ts the admission of statemen ts given b

y a suspect durin

g a custodial i nterroga tion wi thout the a

ccus ed b ei

ng i nf orme d ab out hi s ri

ghts
. Mi randa , 3 84 U.S. at 444-4 5, 16 L . Ed. 2d a t 706-07, 8 6 S. Ct. at 16 12. Specif ical ly , t he Supreme Co ur t held t ha t “the pr o se cu t io n ma y no t us e s t at eme nt s, wh et he rex cu lpa t o ry o rin cu lp at o r y, stem m i ng f rom custodial in terro gation of the def

endan t unles s i t demonstrates the use of procedural s afegua rds effect iveto secure the pri vi le ge ag ain st se lf

-in crim in ation.” Mi

randa , 384 U.S. at 444, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 706, 8 6 S. Ct. at 16 12. The S upreme C ourt defi ned “ custodial

in terro gation” as “que st ioning initiat ed by law e nfor cement officer s aft er a pe rso n has be en t ake n i nto cu stod

y or ot her wisede pri

ve d of hi s f reedom of action in

any signifi cant way .” Mi

randa , 384 U.S. at 444, 16 L. Ed. 2 d a

t 706 , 86S. C t. at 1 612 . The “ proc ed ura l saf eg ua rds ” that m

us t be em pl oyed ar e1-06-0824

-19-

now commonl

y ref erred t o as Mi

randa wa rning s: t he pe r so n mu st be wa rne d t hat he has a r ight to re main sil

ent , t hat any st at ement he do es mak e may be used as ev ide nce agai nst hi m, an d that he has a right t o t he pres ence of an attorney , ei ther re tai ne d or appoi

nted
. Mi

randa , 384 U.S. at 444, 16 L. E d. 2 d a

t 70 6- 07 , 86

S. Ct. a t 16 12 . Th

e S up re me C our

t f ur th er h el d th at th e defend ant ma

y wai ve those rights, provided that the wa iver is made volu nt ar ily , k now ingly and int elli ge nt ly. Mi

randa , 3 84 U.S. at 444, 16 L . E d. 2d a t 707 , 8 6 S . C t . a t 161 2. Finally , t he MirandaCourt ex pla ine d t ha t , o nc e t he wa rning s ha ve be en giv en , t he fo llo win g p r o ce du r e mu s t be f oll owed: “If

th e ind i vi dua l i nd i ca tesi n a ny man ne r, a t an y ti me prior to or dur ing q ues t ioning, t hat he wishe s t o r emain silent, t he i nte rrog ati on mus t cease. *** If the i n di

v i du al sta tes th at h e w an ts
an at t o r ne y, t he int er r o ga t io n mu st ce as e u nt il an a t t o rne y is presen t. A t th at ti

me, th e i n di v i du al m ust h av e a n opp ortu n i ty to confer wit h t he at t o rne y and t o ha ve him p r es en t du r ing any subs equ ent questioni

ng. If the i

ndi vi dual cann ot obtain a

n attor ney and he ind ica t es t ha t he wa nt s o ne be fo r e s pe ak ing to p olice, they must respect hi s deci sion to remai n si le nt.” Mi randa , 384 U .S . at 473-7 4, 16 L . Ed. 2d a

t 723, 86 S . Ct. at 1627 -28. The wa rn i n gsset f orth in Mi ra nda wer e inte nded t o p re ser ve t he fifth amend ment priv il ege aga inst s elf-incriminatio n duri ng “inco mmunicado inter ro gat ion o f indivi dua ls in a police-domi

nated atmosphere.” Mi

randa , 38 4 U .S. at 4 45 , 16 L. Ed. 2d

at 7 07 , 86

S. Ct. at 1612.1-06-0824

-20-

Suc h an at mo sp he r e g en er at es “inhe r en t ly co mpe lling p r es su r es wh ichwo rk t o un de rmin e the indi vidual’ s wi

l l to resi st an d to compel h im to speak where he would not o therwise do so freel y.” Mi randa , 384 U.S. at 467, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 719, 86 S. Ct. at 1624. In Rh o de I sla nd v. I nnis , 446 U .S. 2 91 , 6 4 L. Ed . 2 d 29 7, 100 S. Ct . 1 682 (1 980 ), t he Uni ted Stat es Suprem

e Court defin

ed the term “ in

terro gation.” In I nnis , the respondent was arrested and ad vis ed of hi s Mi randa ri ghts
. The res

pon den t i n f orm ed th e p oli ce

th at h e wi sh ed to speak wit h an a ttorn

ey , a n d th e p oli ce pl ac ed th e res pon den t i n a p oli ce v eh i cl e i n order to trans port the re spon

den t to t he pol i ce station
. Wh i l e i

nroute t o t he po lice st at ion, t wo of t he police officer s in the po lice vehicle wit h t he r esp ond ent had a co nver sat ion in which o ne o f the police off ic ers voi ced his concern that i t wo ul d b e b ad if o ne o f t he dis ab led ch ildr en fr o m a local sc ho o l fo un d t he mis sing we apo n a nd wa s injured or killed. T he r esp ond ent inter ru pt ed t he offi cers’ con ve rs ati on a nd aske d the p ol i ceof

f i cers to turn

the ve hi cl e a roun d s o he coul d s how them where the wea

pon w as l ocated. The issue be for e t he Su pr eme Co ur t in Inn is w as “wh ether the respondent was ‘i nterrogat ed’ by

the police off

ic ers i n vi olation of

the respondent’s un

dis puted righ

t under Mi randa to remai n si le nt until he h ad consul ted with a l

awy er.” I nnis , 446 U. S. at 298, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 30 6, 100 S . Ct. at 1688
. The I nnis Courtconcl uded “that the Mi

randa saf eg ua rd s c om e i n to pla y wh en ev er a p er so n in

cus to dy i

s subj ected to ei

ther express ques

tioni ng or its f

unctiona l equi va l en t.” In ni s , 446 U.S. at 300-01, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 307-08, 100 S. Ct . at 1689. T he I nnis Courtexpl

ai ned that the “f

unctiona l e quiv al ent ” of ex pre ss que sti oni ng wa s “an y words or act ions on the part o f the pol ic e (ot her than those n

ormal ly attendant to arrest and custody) that1-06-0824

-21-

t he pol i ce shoul

d kn ow are re ason

ab l y l i kel y to eli ci t an i ncri m i na tin g res pons e f ro m t he
sus pect.” I nnis , 446 U.S. at 301, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 308, 100 S. Ct . a t 168 9- 90. Sp ecifically, the Courtfo un d t ha t it co uld n ot be sa id t ha t t he po lice o ffice r s s ho uld ha ve kn o wn t ha t t he ir
con ve rs ati on was re aso nably li

kely to elicit an i nc rim i n ati n g r es ponse f rom th e res pon den t. I nnis , 446 U .S. at 302, 6 4 L. Ed . 2d at 30 9, 100 S . Ct. at 1690 . Th e I nnis Co ur t held t hat , in t he f acts b ef orei t, the res pon den t wa s n ot i n te rr o ga t ed wit hin t he me aning o f Mi randa
. I nnis , 446 U.S. at 302 , 64 L. E d. 2d a t 308, 100

S. Ct. at 169 0. The Uni ted St ates S up r eme Co ur t ex pa nd ed up o n it s fift h a men dme nt jur isp rud en ce in Edwards , 4 51 U .S . 4 77, 68 L . E d. 2d 3 78, 101 S. Ct . 1 880 . I n Edwards , t he pe t itio ne r wa s arrested, brought to a police station, and in formed of hi

s Mi randa r igh t s. I nit iall y , th e petitione r i n di ca te d t hat he wa s willi

ng t o s pea k wit h t he po lice, bu t he lat er invok ed his fifth a mendme n t right t o ha v e a

n attor n ey pr es en t du ri n g th e custodi al i n ter rog ati on . Th e p eti ti on er wa s retu rned to t he cou nty j ai l . The f ol l owi ng morni ng , th e p ol i ce

went to th

e c oun ty j ai l i n or der to speak wi

th t he pe t it io ne r . T he po lice in form ed hi m of h is Mi randa r igh t s a nd t he pe t it io ne rsu bse qu en t ly
ma de a s t at eme nt t o t he p o lice imp licat ing h imself i n th e cri m e. The i ssue b efore the Uni ted Stat es Supreme C ourt was whethe r the fi fth, si xth, and f

ourt een th am endm en ts " 'requi

re su ppr es si on of a po st -a rr est co nfessio n, w hich was obt aine d aft er [ t he pe t it io ne r ] ha d in vo ke d h is right to consul

t coun se l b efore further investigation.' " Edwards , 451 U.S. at 478, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 382, 101 S. Ct. at 1881. The Edwards Court hel d: “[W]h en an accuse d h as invok ed his r ight t o ha ve co unse l pre sent dur ingcustodial

in terro gation, a val

id wa iv er of tha t righ t ca nn ot1-06-0824

-22- be es t ab lishe d b y sho win g only that he responded to further policein itiatedcus t od ial inter ro gat ion eve n if he has bee n a dv i se d of his rights. *** [A]n accus ed * ** , havi ng ex pressed hi

s desi re to deal
w it h th e p oli ce

onl y th rough cou n se l , i s n ot s ub j ect to furt he r i nte rrog ati on by the a ut hor ities u nt il couns el has bee n ma d e
a va ilable to hi

m , unl ess the accus ed h

i m sel f i ni tia tes f urt he r co mmunicatio n, ex ch an ge s, o rco nve r sa t io ns w it hthe p oli ce.” Edwards , 45 1 U.S. at 484- 85, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 386, 101 S. Ct. at 1884- 85. The Edwards cou

rt em ph as ize d th a t “it is inco nsist ent wit h Mi randa and it s pr og eny for t he
au thor ities , at t he irins ist en ce , t o r ein t er r o ga t e a n a cc us ed in c us t o dy i f he ha s c lea r ly a sser t ed hi s right to counsel .” Edwards , 451 U.S. at 485, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 387, 101 S . C t . a t 188 5. The Edwards cou

rt f oun d th at th e p eti ti on er wa s s ub j ected to a c usto dial int er ro gat ion o n t he se co nd da y, and the custodial

in terro gation was at the i nsistence of the pol i ce. T her efo re , t he Edwards court hel

d that t he peti

tioner's statement, ma

de wit ho ut ha ving ha d a cc es s t o co un se l, did not am o unt to a val

i d wai ver an d was i nadm i ssi bl e. Edwards , 451 U.S. at 487, 68 L. Ed 2d at 388, 1 01 S. C t. at 1886. Later, in Illinois v. P er kins , 496 U.S. 292, 296, 110 L. Ed. 2d 243, 251, 110 S. Ct. 2394, 2397 (1990) , t he Uni

ted St ates Supreme Court recognized that there are ci rcumstances that do not i m pli ca te the concerns un

derly in g Mi randa
. In Per kins , an i

nm ate in form ed the poli

ce that t he res pon dent h ad tol d h i m ab out a m urder th at the re sp ond

en t ha d c om m i tted. The poli

ce1-06-0824

-23-

located the respondent at a jail w her e t he r esp ond ent was being held o n an unr elat ed mat t er . An undercover

age nt and a n informant wer e plac ed in a c ellblock w ith t he r esp ond ent . T he undercover

ag en t aske d th e res pon den t i f h e h ad ev er “ don e” an y b ody. Th e res pon den t s a id that he had an d procee ded to des cri

be at l ength the ev

en ts of th e m urder. The is sue bef

ore t he Suprem

e Court was “whether an

undercover law en f

orc em ent off ic er must giv e Mi randa warni ngs to an i

ncarcerated suspect bef

ore askin g hi m que stions that m

ay elic it an incriminat ing re spo ns e.” Per kins , 49 6 U .S. at 2 95 -9 6, 1 10L. Ed. 2d at 2 50 , 11 0 S . C t. at 2396. The Supreme C ourt found t hat “[c] onv ersations b etween suspects an d undercover ag en ts do not im

pli cate the concerns un

derly in g Mi randa . The essen

ti a l i ngredients of a ‘pol

ic edo mi natedatmosphere’ and com puls ion a re not present when an

in carcerated person speaks fr ee ly to someone wh

om he bel ie ves to be a f

ellow inm ate.” Per kins , 496 U .S. at 296, 1 10 L. E d 2d a t 25 1, 1 10S. Ct. a

t 23 97 . Th

e S up re me C our

t f ur th er f oun d th at Mi randa forbi ds co erc i on , but“ [p ]l oys to m i sl ead a su sp ect or l

ul l h i m i n to a f alse se n se of se cu ri ty that do n ot ri se t o t he le vel of co mpulsion o r c oe rc ion t o s pea k ar e no t wit hin Mi randa ’s concerns.” Per kins , 496 U.S. at 297, 110 L. Ed 2 d at 2 51, 110 S. Ct. at 239 7. “Mi

randa wa s n ot m ea n t to pr otect su sp ects f rom bo as t ing a bo ut t heir cr iminal ac t ivit ies in fr ont o f pe r so ns w ho m t he y belie ve t o be t he ir cel l mates.” Per kins , 496 U.S. at 298, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 252, 110 S. Ct. at 2399. The Per kins Court he ld th at Mi randa warni ngs are not required when ever a sus

pect is i n custody i

n a techn ic al
sensean d c o nve r se s w it h so meo ne wh o happ en s t o be a g o ve rnme n t a gent; theref ore, “an undercover

l aw en f orce men t of f i cer pos i ng asa f el l ow i nm atene ed not give Mirand a

warni ngs to an i ncarcerate d suspect before asking questions that may el ici t an incri mi nating resp onse .”1-06-0824

-24-

Per kins , 496 U.S. at 300, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 253, 110 S. Ct. at 2399. I nt he inst ant cas e, Hunt t est ifi ed t hat on J uly 18, 200 2, det ect ives qu est ioned him and he tol d them he wan ted to talk

wi th a l awy er. The tr i al

cou rt f o un d, “I t is c lea rt ha t pr io rt o Ju ly 31 st, de f en da nt h ad i nd i ca ted he di d n ot wi sh to speak t o p olice r ega rd ing t his case .” The evi dence that defendant invoked his right t o co unsel on July 18, 2 002, suppo rt s the t rial court ’s f i ndi ng of f act. We mus t deter mi ne wh ether Hunt’s sta

tem en ts to Da v i s, af ter i n v oki n g h i s r i gh t to counsel on Jul y 18, 2002, an

d Jul y 31 , 2002, w er e made dur ing cus t od ial inter ro gat ions. The record re veals t hat Hunt wa s i

n p ol i ce custody

when he made th e statem en ts to Davi s. Mar yland
v. Shatzer , No. 08- 680, sli p op. at 14-15 (U.S. February 24, 2010) (lawf ul i mprisonm ent im posed upon co nvictio n do es no t cr eat e t he co er cive pr essu re s ident ifi ed in Mi randa , but pretr ia

l detain ees whose contin

ued detention as s

uspects rest with those co ntr ol l i ng the i r i nte rrog ati on arein int er r o ga t ive o rcu st o dia l Mi randa cu sto dy ). Th e rec ord

f ur th er re v ea l s th at H un t spoke wi th Davis, a poli

ce agent, who was posing as a fel low in mate and was wearin

g a wire to a ssis

t t he St at e in obt aining incriminating inf o rm ati on f rom Hu nt. A cc ordi

ng to Per kins , although Hunt was in

custody, Hunt’s j ai lh

ouse conversati on with Da vi s, a poli

ce agent whom

Hun t bel ie ved to be a f el l ow i nm ate , di d n ot consti tute a cu stod i al i nte rrog a tion bec ause the poli ce were n ot i n the room . Per kins , 496 U.S. at 296, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 251, 110 S. Ct. at 2397 (“Wh en
a sus pect consider h

i m sel f i n the com pan y of c el l mates a nd n ot off i cers , the c oerc i veatm

os phe re is la cki ng”). Accordi

ngl y, we f in d, foll owing f ederal case l aw, that becauseH unt made t he sta tem en ts to Da v i s, an i n f orm an t, a n d di d n ot m ake th e state men ts to th e p oli ce , Hun

t w as no t1-06-0824

6 It sho uld be no t ed t hat in I nnis , Edwards , and Per kins , t he po lice wer e involved in a
co nver sat ion wit h eac h defend ant . S pec ifi cally, in I nnis , t he po lice ta lked w ith t he r esp ond ent while he wa s riding in the ba ck o f the po lice vehicle. I n Edwards , t he po lice we nt t o t he jail wher e t he pe t itio ner was being held in o rd er t o s pea k wit h t he pe t itio ner . I n Per kins , t he unde rc ove r a gent place d himself in the ce llbl oc k whe re t he r esp ond ent was being held. In t he in stant case, the police rem oved Hunt from

the county j ai l a

nd too k hi

m to the Area 4 poli

ce station wh

ere H unt tal ked wi th an i nf orma nt or un dercov er pol i ce a gen t. -25- subj ect to a custodial

in ter rogat i on an

d, theref ore, Mi randa wa rn i n gsweren ot re qui

re d p rior to t he conv ersa tion between Hun t and Dav i s. Per kins , 496 U .S. at 296-9 7, 110 L . Ed. 2 d at 2 51, 110 S. Ct. at 2397. We f i n d th i s c as e d ist ing uis hable fr o m Edwards . As no t ed a bove , in Edwards , the police continue d to question the peti

tioner af ter the petitione

r made a request that an at t or ney be pr ese nt dur ing the in terro gation. Al

though Hunt testifi

ed that he i

nvoked h is righ t t o coun se l o n J ul y 1 8, 2002, t he po li ce did no t qu es t io n H un t o n Ju ly 31 , 20 02 , o ro n Au gu st 6, 20 02 ; r at he r , Da vis conversed with Hun

t. The Edwards rule wa s d es ign ed t o pr ev en t t he po li ce from badgeri ng a defend ant in

to wai vi ng hi s previ ously asserted Mi

randa ri ghts
. Per kins , 496 U.S. at 296-9 7, 1 10 L. E d. 2d at 25 1, 11 0 S
. Ct
. at 23 97 ; s ee als o Oregon v. Bradshaw , 462 U.S. 1039, 77 L. Ed. 2d 405, 103 S. Ct. 2830 ( 1983 ) ( pl ur alit y opini on). In the in

stant case, the poli

ce did not badger Hunt beca use t hey did no t spe ak w ith hi m on Ju ly 31, 200 2, or Augu st 6, 200 2, co ncer ning t he Sh ak ir Beckley m urder. 6 He r e, ba dg er ing by p o lice o ffice r s, t he ev il so ug ht t o be av o ide d in Edwards , did no t oc cur in the inst ant cas e bec aus e t he po lice did no t que st ion Hu nt . We f ind t he1-06-0824

-26-

f acts in Edwards dist inguishable fr om t he fact s in t he i nst an t ca se be ca us e t he st at eme nt s in Edwards wer e made during a co nversat ion between t he pet itioner and t he police whil e Hunt ’s sta tem en ts were m

ade to a pol i cei nf orm an t or ag en t. There f ore, ac cord

i ng to Per kins , Mir anda
was not violated and Hu nt ’s st at eme nt s t o D avis did no t violat e Hu nt ’s fifth amend ment priv il ege agai nst self -i ncri m i na tion
. Per kins , 496 U.S. at 296-97, 110 L . Ed. 2d at 251, 110 S. Ct. at 2397. The Unit ed S t at es S upr eme Co ur t re cent ly distinguishe d bet wee n i nt err oga ti ve or custodial Mi

randa cus tody a

nd th e noncoerc i

ve pres sure s of

i nc arce rati on. Shatze r , slip op. at 14-15
. In Shatze r , a p ol i cede tec ti ve que sti one d the def

en da nt, wh o wa s i nc arc era ted i n pri son pur sua nt t o a pr ior co nvictio n, a bou t allegat ions t hat t he de fendant had s exua lly abu se d his so n. The defendan

t invoked hi s Mi

randa r i gh t t o ha ve co unse l pre sent dur ing qu est ioning, and t he det ect ivecea sed que st ioning t he de fendant . T he de fendant was re t ur ned t o p riso n. Ap pr o ximat ely 21⁄2 yea r s la t er , a different po lice det ect ive aga in ques t ioned t he de fendant , w ho
was stil l i ncarcerated i

n pri son, reg ardin

g t he ac cu sa t io ns t ha t t he de fen da nt se xu ally a bu se d h is
so n. The defendan

t waived his Mi

randa ri ghts and m ade i ncul patory statem en ts. T he de fendant fi le d a m ot ion to dis

mi ss the i ncul pa tory s tate

men ts. The U

n i ted Sta tes Su pr em e C our t fou nd that 14 days i s a suf

fi ci ent break i

n custody to en d t he pr es ump t io n o f invo lun t ar ine ss se t fo rt h in Edwards
. Shatzer , sl

i p op. at 11. Th

e Court f urthe r fo un d t ha t “la wful

im prisonm ent im posed upon con vi cti on of a c r ime do es no t cr eat e t he co er cive pr essu re s ident ifi ed in Mi randa .” Shatzer , slip op. at 14. Accordingl y, the Court held that because t he d efe ndan t experien

ced a br eaki ni n te rrogati

ve or Mi randa cus tody th

at l asted more than

two weeks , Edwards doe s n ot1-06-0824

-27-

man da te a su ppr essio n o f the defend ant ’s inculpa t or y sta t ement s made dur ing t he se co nd i nterroga tion
. Shatzer , sl

i p op. at 18. We find the fact s in Shatzer dis tingui shab le from the fact s in the i

nstant case. Un

li ke Shatzer , wh ic h inv olve d poli ce i nterrogat ion, the i

nstant case i

nvol ved a conv

ersation b etween Davi s, an i

nf ormant or poli ce agent, and Hun t. Also, unl

ike Shatzer , in

volv in g a convi cted felo n in carceratedin a pena l institu t ion, Hu nt was a pretrial detain ee and sus

pect in a m urder i nv es ti ga ti on whose detention res

ted wi th thos e con

troll i ng th e i nterroga tion
. Shatzer , sli

p op. at 14-15. The re for e, we find t he fact s in Shatzer di sti ngu i shab l e f rom th e f acts i n the i nstant ca se. We not e t hat t he I lli

nois S upr eme Co ur t in McCaul ey re cog n ize d th at Mo ra n v. B ur bine , 475 U. S. 412 , 8 9 L. Ed . 2 d 41 0, 106 S. Ct . 1 135 (1 986 ), is the co nt ro lli ng ca se fo r d et er mini

ng whethe r, under the f

ederal constitution, a def

endan t’s statement sh

ould be suppressed. McCaul ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 423, citing Bur bine , 475 U. S. 412, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 1 06 S. Ct . 1 135. S pe cif ica lly, the McCaul

ey cou rt n ote d t hat , “u nde

r Bur bine , in de t er mining t he v alidit y of a custodial suspec t’s w ai

ve r of the f i f th a men dm en t righ t to coun

se l , th e re l evan

t an d n arr ow i nqu i ry is whether hi

s abi li ty to understand or comprehend h is righ ts has be en co mpromis ed by t he la ck of i nf ormation or the poli

ce conduct in

withh oldi ng that in form ation.” McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 423. We find the fact s in Bur binedis tingui shab le from the fact s i

n th i s c as e. The cri

ti ca l f acts in Bur binewere as f

ollo ws: (1 ) t he po lice administe re d t he r equ ired war nings t o t he r esp ond ent who was i

n custody on an

unrelated ca se; (2 ) t he po lice so ught t o a ssu re t hat t he r esp ond ent
un de rs to od

h i s r i gh ts;(3 ) the p oli ce

ob tai n ed wri tten wai v er s f rom th e res pon den t pri or to1-06-0824

7 We n ot e that the Ill

in ois Suprem

e Court, when

decidin g a case un

der a fede ral cons titutional provisi on, has f oll owed the Uni

ted St ates Supreme Court and treated inm ate in form ants si mi la r -28- elic iting eac h of t he t hre e st at ement s; (4 ) t he r esp ond ent ’s sist er called a public de fender on t he respo ndent’s behalf; (5 ) t he po lice misi nfor med t he pu blic defende r a bou t t heir p lans co ncer ning t he respondent; an

d (6) the poli ce f

aile d to i n f orm th e res pon den t of th e pub l i c def

en der’ s e f f orts to reach hi m . Bur bine , 475 U.S. at 415-18, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 417-18, 106 S. Ct . at 1138-39. In t he insta nt case, the Bur

b inere quir ement s we re not met be cau se ( 1) t he po lice did no t t alk t o H unt
on Ju l y 31 , 20 02 , a

n d A ug ust 6, 20 02 , a

n d n ev er i n f orm ed Hu n t of h i s r i gh ts p ur suan t to Mi randa on Jul y 31, 2002, or August 6, 2002; (2) the police were nev er assured

th at Hunt
un ders tood hi s righ ts because they

never Mi

randi zed hi m;and (3) the po l i ce n ev er obtaine d express wr it t en wa ive r s fr o m Hu nt pr io rt o his di sc us sio ns wit h D av is o n J ul y 31, 2002 , a nd August 6, 2002. See Bur bine , 475 U.S. at 421, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 421 , 1 06 S . C t . a t 114 1. While the
re spo ndent in Bur binerecei ved Mi randa wa rni ng be f ore ta l ki ng to t he po li ce, Per kins woul d n ot requi re Mi randa warnings b eca

use Hun t was tal ki ng to an i nf orma nt. Per kins , 496 U.S. at 296- 97, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 251, 110 S. Ct. at 2397. Accordin gly , if we fo llo we d U nit ed St at es Su pr eme Cou rt ca se l aw i nte rpreti ng the f i f th a men dm en t, no Mi randa war nings ar e r equ ired when a defend ant i s tal

ki ng to an und ercover age

nt or an i nf orman t; th erefore, Hu

n t wou l d n ot h av e to be i nf orme d ab out hi s coun

sel be i ng prese nt at the pol i ce station
. McCaul ey Next, we m

ust determi

ne wh ether Hunt's stateme

nts to Davis woul

d be sup pressed unde

r McCaul ey , whi ch was de ci ded under Il

li nois ' co ns ti tuti on al guarantees. 7 McCaul ey , 163 Ill . 2d1-06-0824

to undercover poli

ce off ic ers for purposes of the f if th ame ndm ent. See Peo ple v. Manning , 182 Ill . 2d 193 (1998) (apply

in g Per kins to a ja

i l hous e i nf orma nt). -29- at 423 -24 ; s ee a l so Il l . C o nst . 1 97 0, ar t . I , § 10 (g ua ra nt ee ing d efe nda nt s t he r ight ag ains t se lfi ncri m i na tion ). The McCaul

ey court noted that t he Un

ited States Supreme Co ur t ha s in dic ated that state courts

ha ve the a uthori ty to i nterpret thei

r re spe ct ive cons

tituti onal provisions m

ore br o ad ly than the Un

ited States Supreme Court interprets si mi la rfe deral constitut ional

pro vi sions. McCaul ey , 16 3 I l l . 2d

at 4 26 , c i

ti ng Ore gon v. Hass , 420 U.S. 714, 719, 43 L. Ed. 2d 570, 575- 76, 95 S. Ct. 1215, 1219 (1975). The McCaul ey cour t also no t ed t ha t t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Courtpermi

ts t he Stat es to adopt " ' diff erent requirements for the conduct of [their] em ploy ees and officials as a matt er of st at e law. ' " (E mpha sis i n ori gi na l .) McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 426, quot ing Bur bine , 475 U.S. at 428, 89 L. Ed. at 425, 106 S. Ct. at 1144. The M cCaul ey cour t further not ed t hat feder al aut hor ities a re not pr ece dent ially co nt ro lli ng but merely gu ide t he i nte rpreta ti on of state l aw. McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 436, citing Rol li ns v. Ell woo d , 14 1 I ll. 2d 244, 275 (1990). Fin

ally , the McCaul

ey courth eld th at f

i na l con cl us i ons on th e c ons tructi on of sta te con sti tuti on al gu aran tee s a ref or th e Il l i noi s Suprem

e Court to deci

de. McCaul

ey , 16 3 I ll. 2d at 436, citin

g Ro lli ns , 141 Ill . 2d at 275. The Mc C aul ey

court establ i shed that our state’ s consti tution al guara ntee s af f ord de f en da n ts a greater degree of prot ection than does the fed eral c ounterpart . See McCaul ey , 163 I ll. 2d at 423 (“The day

is long past in

Ill in ois, however, wh er e a t t o r ne ys mu st shout legal advi ce to t he ir c lient s, he ld in cu sto dy , th rough the jai

lh ouse doo r”). The McCaul ey court hel

d that “[o]urSta

te c on sti tuti on al gu aran tee s s i m pl y do n ot pe rm i t pol i ce to de l ude custo dial

su spects,1-06-0824

-30-

exposed t o int er ro gat ion, into falsely beli eving t he y ar e w it hout im me dia tely avai la ble l egal counsel an d t o als o pr ev en t t ha t co un se l fro m ac ce ss ing an d a ss is t ing t heir client s du ring t he i nterroga tion .” McCaul

ey , 163 Ill
. 2d at 423-24, citin g Ill . Const. 1970, art . I, §§2, 10. Ac co r di ng ly, as di

r ec t ed by t he I llino is S up r eme Co ur t , we wil l ap pl y McCaul ey t o t he fac t s in t his cas e t o d et er mine whet her Hunt 's st at ement s sho uld be s upp re ssed und er Illino is' s elfi nc ri m i na ti on guarantee that is codifi

ed i n articl e I, sec ti on10 o f t he I llino is C o nst it ut io n. I ll. Cons t. 1970, a rt. I, §10. Bef ore we review thi s ca se u nde r McCaul ey , we must deter mi

ne un der Ill in ois l aw (1) whether Hunt was i

n poli ce custody, (2) wh ethe r Davi s, t he infor mant, was a po lice age nt , a nd (3) whet her t his was a cus t od ial inter ro gat ion. The St at e mainta ined t hat Hunt was involved in a jud icia lly aut hor ized c ons en su al ove rhea r an d the i nte rrog ati on wasa n

onc us todial i nte rrog ati on because Hu

n t ta lke d to Davi s an d did n ot talk wi th the police on Jul

y 31, 2002, an

d August 6, 2002. We n ote ( 1) th at H un t i nvoke d hi s righ

t t o counsel on J

uly 18, 2002, and on Jul

y 31, 200 2, aft er

con su l ti n g wi th h i s a ttorn ey; (2 ) that C ook C oun ty j ai l pri son er s, l i ke Hu n t, transferred

pursuant to sect ion 19.5 of the County Jai

l A ct are “i n cus to dy”( Hunt , 234 Ill . 2d at 6 3); (3) that Hunt did not consent or ini tiate a conversation with the pol ic e or make a re qu es t t o go to the A

rea 4 p oli

ce station, so i

t was n ot a vol unta ry trans f er; (4) tha

t an overhear o r der authorized

the p oli ce to place a wire on Davi s, who co nsented to wear t he wi re; (5) t hat Davis,
an in ma te, was sele cted by

the police be cause they

bel ie ved h e could persuade H

unt to ma

ke a st a t ement im

pli catin g hi ms el f i n the Sha

kir Be ckl ey

murder; and (6) that Davi s was a polic e1-06-0824

8 It should be

noted that sect ion 103-2.1 provides that "custodial in terro gation" m

eans an int er r o ga t io n, at a p lac e o f de t en t io n o ra p o lice st at io n, du r ing wh ich "( i) a r ea so nable pe r so n in t he su bject 's po sitio n wo uld co nsider himself or he rse lf to be in cus t od y, and (ii) du ring w hich a que st ion is as ked t hat is rea so nably li kely to elicit an incr imi

nat ing re spo nse. " It sho uld also be noted that t he def

in ition in section 103-2.1 does not li mi t t he use of

the term "custodial i nte rrog ati ons " to q ue sti ons tha t are aske d by pol i ceof f i cers ; th ere f ore, the de f i ni ti on i n s ec ti on 103 -2 .1 app lies if a ques t ion is as ked t hat is li kely to elicit an incr imi

nat ing re spo nse e ven if the question i s asked b

y an und ercover pol

i ce a gen t, in f orma nt or of f i cer. -31- age nt because

he was ac ti ng i n c on cert wi

th, an d at the behe st of, th

e pol i ce. Pe o ple v. St ec hly , 225 Ill . 2d 246, 301 (2007) (holdin g that a polic e agent i s a par ty wh o ga

th er s i n f orm ati on to pas s i t al ong to the a

uthori tie s). Next, we must de cide whether Davis’squ es ti oni ng of Hu nt a t the A rea 4 pol i cesta ti on constitutedcus t od ial inter ro gat ion u nder Illinois law. In Peo ple v. Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d 762 (1993 ), appeal

deni ed, 153 Ill . 2d 567 (1993), t he court defi ned “ cus to di

al i n ter rog ati on ” to in cl ude que sti

on i ng b y pol i ce agen

ts an d i nf orma nts as we l l

as p oli ce of f i cers . Per kins , 24 8 I ll. App
. 3d at 769 . T he legislat ur e effect ively codified t he de fini t ion p ro mulgat ed in Per kins in
se cti on 103 -2. 1 of

the Code of Cri m i na l Proc edure of 19 63. See 72 5 ILCS 5/103 -2.1 ( West 2006)
. 8 The Hunt case hol ds that Hunt was i

n custody wh

en h e wa s t ra n sf er re d f rom th e c oun ty jailto the A

rea 4 p oli ce station where h e was detai ne d. Hunt , 23 4 Ill . 2d at 63. Davis , the police ag en t, was wi re d and a ske d Hun

t questi ons s o he c oul d obtai

n i ncri m i na tin g i nf orma tion . The re was a c us t o di al in t er r o ga t io n be ca us e t he po lice inv o lunt ar ily r em o ve d H un t fr o m t he co un t y jail1-06-0824

-32-

so Hunt could b e i

nterrogat ed by

Dav is , the unde rcover police agent, and the polic e agent asked Hunt que st ions likely to elicit an inc ri m i n ati ng r esp onse . See Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 769;
seeal so 725 ILCS 5/103-2.1 (West 2006). Therefore, because Hun t inv oked hi s righ

t t o counsel
on Ju ly 18 , 2 00 2, and Ju ly 31 , 2 00 2, bec au se Hu nt wa s t ra nsfe rred, involunt ar ily , fr om t he
cou n ty ja il on Jul y 31, 2002, an

d Augu st 6, 20 02 , be ca us e H un t wa s in p o lice cu st o dy a nd Da vis
was an un

dercover police ag ent , a nd be ca us e t he po lice ha d D av is, t he ir a ge nt , wir ed so he co uld i n i ti ate question i ng a nd ob tai n i ncri m i na tin g i nf orma tion ab out the Sh

aki r B ec kle y mu rde

r f rom Hunt on behalf of the poli ce, we hold that Hunt's in terr ogat ions on Jul

y 31, 200 2, and on August 6, 20 02 , a t th e A re a 4pol i ce sta t ion w ere c

ustodial i nterroga tions. McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 427, 438-43, 447 ; Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 769; see also 725 ILCS 5/103-2.1 (West 20 06) ; I ll. Const. 1970, art . I, §§2, 10
. Now, be ca

us e w e h

ave dec i de d that H

un t pa rtici pa ted i n c us tod ial int erro gations, McCaul ey di rects th i s c ourt to f

ol l owthe ru le in Sm

i th , w hich held t hat unde r st at e law, t he police possessed n

o author ity

to pr ev ent or delay co mmunicatio n bet wee n an ar re st ed p er so n and his reta i ne d l aw yer, an d al so th at a

cu sto dia l s uspect's decision to wai

ve counsel

's as si stance was like ly to be af f ected b y the wi thheld i nf orma tion
. McCaul

ey , 163 Il l
. 2d a t 427, citin

g Peo ple v. Smit h , 93 Ill . 2d 179, 187-88 (1982), ci ting Stat e v. Hay

nes , 288 Or. 59, 72- 74, 602 P.2d 272, 278-79 (19 79). The record reveals that on July

18, 2002, Hunt inv

oked hi s righ

t t o counsel

an d that on Jul

y 31, 2002, Hun

t t el ephoned h

is atto rney, a publ

ic defen der, and re qu es te d t hat he
co me to the po li

ce stat ion. Hunt's at t o r ne y c am e to th e p oli ce sta ti on an d r eq ue ste d acc es s to Hu n t. Hunt's attorney wa s de nie d a cc es s t o Hu nt fr o m ap pr o ximat ely 3 :1 5 p
. m. un t il1-06-0824

-33-

ap pr o ximat ely

4 p. m. Fo llowing t he r ule in Sm i th , t he pol ic e had no au thor i ty to “pre ve nt or de lay” com

m uni cation b etween H

unt a nd h i s lawy er. McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 427, citing Sm i th , 93 Ill . 2d at 187-88, ci

ting Hay es , 288 O r. at 72- 74, 602 P .2d 272, 278-79. Hunt was also invo lun t ar ily

rem oved f rom th e coun ty j ail on A ugust 6, 2002;there f

ore, a ft er invok ing his right to coun sel

on Ju l y 31, 2 002, he h

ad a righ t t o consult wi

th counsel

bef ore t he custodial i nte rrog ati on on August 6, 2002. See McCa ule y , 163 Ill. 2d a t 4 38- 43; Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 769; see

al so 725 I LCS 5/103 -2.1, 10 3-3, 10 3-4 (W est 200 6). Second, the McCaule y

c ourt noted that under Illin ois' s guarantee of a person' s priv il ege agains t se l f -i n cri m i n ati on (Il l . C on st. 19 70 , a

rt. I , §1 0) , if

th e c i rc ui t cou rt d ete rm i n es th at a defend ant knew that an attorney was bei ng retain ed for hi m, that the atto rney

was pr ese nt and had re qu ested

ac ce ss to th e de fend ant and t hat t he po lice refu sed t o info rm t he de fendant of t he i m med i ate avai la bi li ty of the attorney, the c ir cui t cou rt sh oul d al l ow th

e def en da n t' s m oti on to suppress. McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 438, quo ting People v . G rigg s , 152 Il l . 2d 1, 30

(1992 ). Here, the ci

rcuit court co rrectly

suppressed Hun

t's statemen

t s t o D avi s that occurred o n Jul y 31, 2002, because

there was a custodial

in terro gation; b ecause Hun t's atto rney

app eared at the police st at ion, pur sua nt t o H unt 's t elepho ne m essa ge, and r equ est ed a cce ss t o H unt on mo re t han o ne oc cas ion; and b ec ause t he po lice r efu se d, fo r45 minu t es , t o info rm Hu nt t ha t his a t t o rne y wa s in t he pol i ce sta ti on so t h at D av i s, a p oli ce

ag en t, c oul d c on cl ude th e i n ter rog ati on of Hu n t. Th e trial cou rt al so c orre ctly

suppressed Hun

t's statemen

ts on August 6, 2002, because, af ter i nv ok ing hi s righ

t t o counsel on J

uly 31, 2002, t here was a c

ustodial in terro gation an

d Hunt was not per mitt ed t o c ons ult wit h co unse l prio r t o t he inte rr og at ion.1-06-0824

-34-

T hir d, the McCaul

ey court noted that t he 1970 Il li nois Constitutional

Conven tion deba tes i n di ca te that t he delegates i

nt end ed that article

I, section 10, i

ncorporat e then-ex

is ting f ederal constitutional

pri nc i ples re gardi

ng i nc omm uni cado i nterroga tion
. McCaul

ey , 16 3 I ll . 2d at 439- 40, ci ting People v . DiGu

ida , 15 2 I ll. 2 d 1 04 ( 19 92 ) ; 3 Re co r d o f Pr o ce ed ing s, Six t h I llino is Constitutional

Convention 1377; S. Go ve & V. Ranney , Con-Co n: Issu es f

or t he I llino is Constitutional

Co nvent ion, 3, 24- 35, 48 ( 197 0) ; G. Bra den & R . C ohn, The Illinois Co nst itu t ion: An An notated & Comparative An al ys is 43-45 (196 9). We f

in d that Hunt was in

police custody and was t ake n to the Area 4 polic e station i nvol untaril y on J uly 31, 2002, and August 6, 2002; that H unt was hel

d i ncom mun ic ado because, af

ter inv oking h is righ t t o counsel on J

uly 18, 2002, and Jul y 31 , 2002, a la wye rwa s no t pe rmit t ed t o ha ve ac ce ss o rco mmun ica t e w it h H un t wh ile Davi s, a po lice age nt , a t t empt ed t o e licit inc riminating info rmat io n fr o m Hu nt ab o ut t he Sh ak ir Beckley mur de rdu r ing t he cu st o dia l i nt er r o ga t io ns on Jul

y 31, 2002, f

or 45 mi nutes, and was deni ed the assistance of counsel on A ugust 6, 2 002. T herefore, we hold that the po li ce offi cers' in comm uni cado cu st od ial int er ro gat ions o n July 31, 200 2 and Augu st 6, 200 2, violat ed H unt 's arti cle I, se cti on 10, g

uaran tee aga i nst self -i ncri m i na tion . Ill . Cons

t. 1970, a rt. I, §10. Fo ur t h, the McCaul

ey co ur t no ted that un der article I, section 2, the due process clause, t he Stat e guar antees an

accused the ri

ght to the assistance as wel l as the presenc e of counsel dur ing an y cus todia l i nterroga tion
. McCaul

ey , 16 3 I l l . 2d

at 4 41 ; I ll. Const. 1970, art . I, §2. Hunt wa s d en ied t he as sis t an ce o f his c o un se l fo r45 minu t es du r ing t he cu st o dia l i n ter rog ations on Jul y 31, 2002, an

d was deni

ed the assistance of couns el on Augus t 6, 200 2 - - Hu nt wa s he ld in a r oo m at a po lice st at ion while a p olice a gent at t empt ed t o e licit incriminating info rmat ion.1-06-0824

-35-

Ther efore, we hold that Hunt's articl e I, section 2, due process rights were vi olated by the police when they deni ed Hunt the assistance of couns el , on July 31, 2002, and Aug

ust 6, 20 02, d

ur ing t he custodial

in terro gations. Ac cordingl y, the tria

l c ourt correc tly

sup pressed Hunt's

Jul y 31, 2002, and A

ugust 6, 2002, statem ent s und er t he du e pr oc ess c lause of I lli nois's co nst itu t ion. McCaul ey , 163 Il l . 2d at 44 0-41; Ill . Cons

t. 1970, a rt. I, §2. Fifth, the McCaul

ey co ur t no t ed t hat se ct io n 10 3- 4 o f t he C o de o f Crimina l Proc ed ure of 1963 co di f

i es a s ta tut ory right of persons i n custody to consult wi th an attor ney

and a
co nco mitant duty

on th e p art of publ i c of f i cers to ad

m i t such cou ns el to con su lt wit h p er so ns in
cu st o dy. McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 443, citing Il l. Rev . Stat . 1987, ch. 38, par. 103-4 ( now 725 ILCS 5/103 -4 (West 200 2)). Here , Hunt was i n the custody of

the police; custodial inter ro gat ions were

cond ucted b y the p oli ce on Jul y 31, 200 2, an

d A ugust 6, 2 00 2; and th e police, publ i c of

f i cers , deni

ed Hu nt th e a ss i sta nc e of cou ns el f or45 min

utes on July

31, 2002, and Hunt re ceive d no assi stan ce from an attor ney

on August 6, 2002. Therefore, the poli ce offi cers' ref us al to pe rm i t Hun t to c onfe r w ith an

attorney wasa cl ear v i ola tion of the statutory right codif

ie d in section 103-4 of the C ode of Crim in al Procedure. 725 ILCS 5 /103-4 ( West 2002)
. Fin ally, the McCaul ey cou rt n ote d t hat t he se lf-incriminatio n pr ivil ege in arti

cl e I, se cti on 10, of the Ill i noi s C ons ti tution on ly pro tects an

accuse d f

rom te sti monial di scl osures . McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 447 (“Sect ion 10 ‘ “protect s anac cu se d o nly fro m being co mpe lled t o t es t ify agains t himse lf, o ro t he rwis e p r o vid e the St at e wit h evidenc e o f a t est imonial or co mmunicative
na ture *** ” ’ ”), quoting People ex rel . Bowm

an v. W oodward , 63 Il

l
. 2d 382 , 385 (1 976),1-06-0824

-36-

quot in g Sc hme r be rv. Ca lifo rnia , 384 U. S. 7 57 , 76 1, 1 6 L . Ed . 2d 90 8, 9 14 , 86

S. Ct. 1826, 1830 (1966 ); se e a lso I ll
. Const. 1970, art . I, §10. Sect ion 10, the se lf -in crim in ation pri vi le ge, does not prot ect against nontestim onia l di sclosures such as requi

rin g a person in cu stod

y to sta nd or wa lk i n a pol i ce l i ne up, to spea

k pre scri bed words , t o mo del pa rt icular clot hing, o r t o g ive
sam ple s of han

dwriti ng, f in gerprin ts, o r blood. See McCau le y , 16 3 Ill. 2d at 447 ; Schm erber , 384 U.S. at 764, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 916, 86 S. Ct. at 1832. Her e, t he po lice place d Da vis, t heir ag ent
ori n f orm an t, i n a room wi th Hu n t i n order to re cord H

un t’ s statem en t s a nd t o o bt ain incriminating i

nf orm ati on f or th e p ol i ce . W

hi l e H un t's sta tem en ts to D av i s, th e p ol i ceag en

t or i n f orm an t, durin g the cus t o dia l interrogations on Jul y 31, 200 2, an

d A ugust 6, 2002, were testim onia l disclo sur es t hat vi olat ed t he self-i ncri mi nation pri vi le ge ( St ec hly , 225 Ill . 2d at 268, quot in g Davis v. W ashi

ng ton , 547 U.S. 813, 822, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224, 237, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273- 74 (200 6) (stat em

ents are testim

onia l wh en the purpose of the i

nterrogat ion i

s to est ab lish o r pr ove pa st ev en t s t ha t ar e r ele va nt t o a la t er cr iminal p r o se cu t io n) ) , t he po lice wo uld no t vio lat e t he se lf-in cr im in

ation pri vi le ge i f they

pla ced Hunt i

n a l in eup. See McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 447; Schm

erber , 384 U.S. at 764 , 16 L. Ed. 2d at 916, 86 S. Ct. at 1832. Accordin gly , the trial courtcorr ectly

suppres sed Hunt 's Ju ly 31, 2 002 , a nd Aug ust 6, 200 2, st at ement s t o D avis, t he police agent or inf

ormant, becaus e Hunt's statements were testim onia l di sclosures du r in g custodi al i

nterroga tions tha t viola ted Hun t's s elf -i ncri m i na tion pri vi l ege. McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 447 ; s eealso St ec hly , 22 5 I ll. 2d a t 268 , q uo t ing Davi s, 547 U.S. at 822, 165 L. Ed. 2d at 237, 126 S. Ct. at 2273-74.1-06-0824

-37- Petition f or Reheari

ng In a p eti ti on f or re h ea ri n g, t h e S ta te a

rguestha t thi s c ourt m

ade erron eou s f i nd i ng s of f act. First , t he St at e disp ut es o ur st at ement t hat Hunt invo ked his righ t t o counsel on J

uly 18, 2002. Hunt testifi

ed that, o n Jul

y 18, 2002, he

to ld de tectives h e wanted to talk wi

th a l awy er. The t r ial c o ur t fo un d, “I t is c lea rt ha t pr io rt o Ju ly 3 1s t, d ef enda n t had i ndicated he did not wish to sp ea k to p o lice r eg ar din g th i s c as e. ” Th e tr

i al cou rt’ s f i n di n g th at H un t i n v oke d h i s r i gh t to counsel pr ior t o J uly 31, 200 2, is based on H unt 's t est imony, and ou r st at ement t hat Hunt in voked his righ

t t o counsel on J

uly 18, 2002, is b ased on the trial court 's f in din g. The St at e a lso dis pu t es o ur find ing t ha t t he St at e h ad cu st o dy o f Hu nt wh en Da vis questioned

hi m. Our suprem

e c ourt, in Hunt , held that Hunt was in custody when

police transf erred him fr om th

e j ail to the A rea 4 p oli ce station where D avi s que sti oned

hi m . Hunt , 234 I ll. 2d at 63
. T he ev id en ce su pp o rt s t he find ing o f c us t o dy. The St at e c o nt es t s o ur int er pr et at io n o f Sha tze r . We adhere to our exp l an

ati on of Shatzer
. The defend ant in Shatzer experi ence d a b reak i n i nterroga tion of 21⁄2 years . Here , a break of lesst han t wo wee ks int er vened bet wee n Hunt ’s invoc at ion o f his right t o c ou nsel du ring que st ioning on

Ju l y 18 , 20 02 , a

n d D av i s’ s i n ter rog ati on of Hu n t o n July 31, 200 2. A seco nd break of less than two weeks in

tervened between Hunt’s quest ioni ng on Jul y 31, 200 2, and t he que st ioning on Au gus t 6, 200 2. Thr ou gho ut eac h of t he pe rio ds o f less t han t wo wee ks, Hunt remai ned in the in termi tt ent custody of those who controlled the i nterrogat ion. The

factual dif feren ces between

this case an d Shatzer re qui rea d i f f eren t re su l t. Next, the Stat e ar gue s th at w e i m prop erl y appl i ed retr oac ti ve l y the de f i ni ti on of1-06-0824

-38-

“custodial in terro gation” our legi

slature codifi

ed i n sec tion 103-2.1 of the Code of Cri mi nal Procedure. 725 ILCS 5/103-2.1 (West 2006). Whi le ot her sections of the statute changet he la w (see Peop l e v . A

m i gon , 388 Ill . App. 3d 26, 30- 32 ( 2009), appeal al lowed, 233 Ill. 2d 565 (2009 )), we findt ha t t he de finit io n o f "c us t o dia l int er r o ga t io n" c o difi es earl ie r decis ions . See Per kins , 248 Ill. App . 3 d at 769 . I n Per kins , a pol i ce i n f orm an t questi on ed

th e def en da n t i n hi s jailcell, af

ter t he def

endan t had r equest ed a n at t or ney. T he t rial co ur t sup pr esse d t he defendant’s stat eme nt s t o t he infor mant, finding tha t t he cu st od ial inter ro gat ion by t he infor mant vi olated t he d efe n da

n t’ s constitutional

righ ts. The Per kins co ur t defined “c ust od ial inter ro gat ion” to i nc l ude q ues tion i ng b y pol i ce agen

ts an d i nf orma nts as we l l

as p oli ce of f i cers . Per kins , 24 8 I ll. App. 3d at 769 . T he de fini t ion ap plied in Per kins has be en co dified in the st at ut or y definition. See 725 ILCS 5/103-2.1 (West 200 6). I f the l egi slature mean

t t o specif

y tha t “custodial inter ro gat ion” ref

erre d to questioning onl y b y poli ce offi cers, t he legisl

atur e would have so specifi ed. Instead, the le gis la

ture defi ned custodial

in terro gation to incl

u de an y int er r o ga t io n in whi ch "a qu esti on i s a sk ed " th at m ay el i ci t an i n cri m i n ati n g r es ponse . B y

us i n g th e pa ssive voic e i n th e s tatute , th e l

eg i sl atu re i nd i ca ted an i nte nti on no t to li m i t th e p oten

ti al qu esti on er s to wh om the provis ion a

ppli es. See Gl

ad ston e, R eal tors v . Vi l l ag e of Be l l wood , 441 U .S. 91, 1 03, 60 L. Ed. 2d 66, 79, 99 S. Ct. 16 01, 160 9 ( 197 9) (st at ut or y use o f pass ive voice place d no restri cti on on p otenti al

plai ntif f s wh o coul d sue

und er the statute). The St at e c laims t hat t he s t at ut o ry d efinit io n o f “c us t o dia l inter ro gat ion” lea ds t o t he absurdi ty t ha t t he co ur t may admit int o e vidence st at ement s o bt ained by de cep t ion as long as t he defend ant makes t he st at ement s whe n he is o ut of c ust od y. The co ur t in Per kins addresse d t hi s1-06-0824

-39-

argumen t and found n

o absurdi ty. The Per kins court said: “Because de f

en da n t h ad i n v oke d h i s r i gh t to co unse l , the acti

on s of th e a uth ori ti e s were im proper and the statements m ade by defen dant mus t be suppressed. [Ci tation .] That i s n

ot to sa y tha t the au thor i ti escoul d n

ot ha ve pl ay ed out t he
sa me scam

on defen dant if he had not been i

n custody, be cause i

t seems cl ear that they co uld have do ne so wit hou t violat ing defend ant 's co ns ti tuti on al ri ghts .” Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 771. Thus, the consti tution m ay perm i t pol ic e to de ceive t he su bject of a n invest igat ion whe n t he subj ect r ema ins fr ee fr o m cu st o dy, bu t sim ilar dece pt ive pr act ices by St at e ag ent s o ffend t he I llino is Constitution wh

en the State has take nt he su bje ct int o cu st o dy a nd he ha s inv o ke d h is right to counse l
. McCaul ey , 16 3 Ill. 2d at 423 -24 ; Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 771 . T he I llino is Consti tution pla ces speci al restrictions

on Stat e action once

th e S ta te has placed the sub je ct of an i nv es ti ga ti on who has i

nvoked the ri

ght to counsel

in the coercive en vir o nme nt o f S t at e c us t o dy. See McCaul

ey , 163 Ill . 2d at 423-24 ; Perki ns , 24 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 77 1. We se e n o ab su r dit y in per mitt ingprosecuto rs to use agains t a de f enda n t st at ement s o bt ained fr om t he de fendant by de ce ption when t he de fendant was not in cust od y, bu t bar rin g the use of si

mi la r statements m

ade by t he de fe nd an t wh ile i n c us t o dy. Fin ally, the Stat e argu es that the cou rt sho uld not suppress t he statements here because police used decept ion, n

ot force, to o btain

the statements. Acc ording to the Stat e, Hunt neve r provedthe kin

d of compul

sion necess ary f

or suppression of

statemen ts under ar ti cl

e I, se cti on 10, of the Ill

in ois Constitution of 1970.1-06-0824

-40-

I llino is cour ts have devel oped standards for determi ni ng wh en i mproper i nf lue nce of l aw e nfo rc ement agents requi res suppressi

on of statemen

ts they h ave obtai ned. See McCaul

ey , 163 Ill. 2d at 428 -3 9. Acco rd ing t o t he co ur t in Per kins :

“ M iran da *** requires tha

t t he off ic ia ls cease questionin

g a suspec t immed iat ely

upon a reque st f or an a ttorney . If

th e q ue stioni ng c onti nue s af ter a suspect h as re qu ested

an attor n ey , but wi th out t he at t or ney's pr ese nce, t hen a heavy bur den is o n t he go ver nment t o s how t hat t he su spe ct kno wingly and int ellig en t ly

wai ved h is righ t t o counsel. Further, al though any

statem en t giv en fr ee ly and v oluntarily without any

compel ling in flue nc es is a dmis sible in evi dence, ‘a ny ev i denc e that the accus ed

wa s th rea ten ed , tri cked , or c aj ol ed

i nto a wai ver will, o f c o ur se , sho w t ha t t he de fen da nt did no t vo lun t ar ily wa ive his pri vi l ege.’ Mi randa , 384 U .S. at 476, 1 6 L. Ed . 2d at 72 5, 86 S. Ct. at 1629.” Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 768. Wh en an accus ed in

vokes hi s righ

t t o counsel, the Il

li nois Constitution f

orbids bot h di

rect in terro gation an

d “l ess di rect t echn ique s of persuasi

on.” Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 771. Here, as in Per kins , “t he go ve rnme nt 's p r o ce du r e w as ca lc ul ate d to deceive def endant, so that he woul d n ot know to wh om

he was m

aki ng i ncri mi natin g statements.” Per kins , 24 8 I ll. App. 3d a t 769 . Like t he co ur t in Pe r kin s , we findt ha t t he de ce pt io n e nsu r ed t ha t de fen da nt did not ha ve the “ op po r t un it y t o kn

owi n gl y an d i n tel l i gen tl y wa i v e h i s pre v i ous l

y as se rte d ri gh t to have counsel

present durin

g questioni

ng.” Per kins , 248 Il

l . Ap p. 3 d at 769. We can

not fi nd a
va lidwa iver o f the right t o c ou nsel whe re Hunt was involunt ar ily re moved fro m the c ou nt y j ai l1-06-0824

-41-

by the poli ce and m erely responded to po li

ce-in itiat e d cu st od ial inter ro gat ion. Bec aus e Hu nt in voked his r ig ht t o co un se l o n J ul y 18 , 20 02 , an d J ul y 31, 200 2, and was i nvol untaril y rem oved f rom the ja il , we fi nd the acti ons of authorities i mproper, and theref

ore we must supp re ss th e s t at ement s authorities

obtaine d from

defen dant. See McCaul

ey , 16 3 Ill. 2d at 447 ; Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 771. Accordingl y, we den y the petition f or rehearin

g. CONCLUSION In concl usion, we fi

nd unde r the fi fth am endm ent, as in terpret ed by

the Uni ted St ates Su pr eme Co ur t in Mi

randa , I nnis , Edwards , Per kins and Shatzer , that Hunt's statem ent s to Davi s,
an undercover poli

ce age n t o r in

form ant, would not be suppresse d because federal case l aw does not co nsid er an int er r o ga t io n by a n u nd er co ve rpo li ce agen t, inf ormant or offi

cer to be a custodial i nterroga tion . W e al so fi

nd, however, un

der Ill in ois’s constitution an

d statut es, as in terpret ed by t he co ur t s in McCaul

ey and Per kins , that Hunt's in terro gation by

Davis, an undercover

pol i ceag en t or i nf orm an t, woul d b e c ons i dered

a cus todial

i nte rrog ati on ; t her efo re, t he trial court properly

suppressed H

u n t' s state men ts to th e u

n derc ov er pol i ce ag en t or i n f orm an t. McCaul ey , 163 Il l . 2d at 42 7, 4 38- 43, 447 ; Per kins , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 769. Fin ally , Hunt, an I llino is ci tizen , w as

i n di cte d b y th e S tate ' s A

ttorn ey of Coo k C oun

ty , Il l i n oi s, ch arge d wi th violat ing an Ill

inois c rim

in al statut e and h

is case i s pendi

ng i n Il li nois ’s courts where his f ederal fif th ame nd men t r igh t s w er e n o t vio lat ed , bu t his I llino is c o nst it ut io na l rig ht s w er e v io lated ; therefore, we thi

nk that Ill in ois' s constitution, statutes and sup reme a nd a ppe llate c ou rt dec isions sho uld bef

ol l ow ed i

n thi s case. Accordingl y, we f oll ow McCaul

ey and suppr ess Hunt ’s statem en ts to Davi s.1-06-0824

-42-

Af fi rmed. MUR PHY, J ., and STEELE, J ., conc ur.