Opinion ID: 2021607
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Suppression of the Overhear Recordings as Inaudible

Text: Although we reject the appellate court's judgment suppressing defendant's statements on fourth amendment grounds, we must still address the alternative grounds the appellate court relied on to affirm the trial court's suppression of the recordings. The appellate court affirmed suppression of the recordings on the alternative ground that they were substantially inaudible. 381 Ill.App.3d at 808, 319 Ill. Dec. 646, 886 N.E.2d 409. The State contends the July 31 recording should not have been suppressed as inaudible. Because the State appealed from the suppression of both the July 31 recording and the August 6 recording, however, we consider the propriety of suppressing both recordings. The State argues that the trial court's suppression ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion because the inaudible portions of the recordings were not so substantially inaudible as to render the recordings untrustworthy. Alternatively, the State asserts the audiotapes have independent evidentiary value irrespective of their substantive evidentiary admissibility. A partially inaudible sound recording is admissible unless the inaudible portions are so substantial as to render the recording untrustworthy as a whole. People v. Manning, 182 Ill.2d 193, 212, 230 Ill.Dec. 933, 695 N.E.2d 423 (1998). The decision whether to admit a partially inaudible sound recording is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Manning, 182 Ill.2d at 212, 230 Ill.Dec. 933, 695 N.E.2d 423. The record demonstrates the trial court listened to the recordings and found them to be indiscernible and worthless. Similarly, the appellate court listened to the recordings, found them to be substantially inaudible, and concluded the recorded conversations could not be understood. 381 Ill.App.3d at 808, 319 Ill.Dec. 646, 886 N.E.2d 409. After listening to the recordings, we also find that they are substantially inaudible and affirm the appellate court's suppression of the July 31 and August 6 recordings as within the sound discretion of the trial court. Manning, 182 Ill.2d at 212, 230 Ill.Dec. 933, 695 N.E.2d 423. The State further argues, irrespective of the substantive admissibility of the recordings, complete exclusion constitutes an abuse of discretion. The State maintains the recordings could be used to impeach Davis if he flips or to demonstrate that Davis and defendant had a conversation. The State, however, fails to provide legal support for its position. Therefore, we find the State has forfeited its claim. People v. Lindmark, 381 Ill. App.3d 638, 664, 320 Ill.Dec. 462, 887 N.E.2d 606 (2008) (Points not argued with citation to authority are forfeited), citing 210 Ill.2d R. 341(h)(7).