Court Opinion

ID: 9540546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:17:20.833865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:58.191155
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting: I believe that Pierce, relied upon by the majority, was wrongfully decided. People v. Pierce, 285 Ill. App. 3d 5, 673 N.E.2d 750 (1996). As in Pierce, the issue before us is whether, as a matter of law, the officer’s questions regarding the ownership of the vehicle constituted an interrogation reasonably likely to elicit incriminating evidence. In this case, the officer’s question was made for an administrative purpose and, therefore, was not reasonably likely to evoke the statement made by defendant. See People v. Abdelmassih, 217 Ill. App. 3d 544, 577 N.E.2d 861 (1991); People v. Pierce, 285 Ill. App. 3d at 7, 673 N.E.2d at 751-52 (Holdridge, J., dissenting). Defendant’s statement regarding the fact that he had given the police a false name was nonresponsive to the question regarding ownership. This was a volunteered admission and, thus, not secured in violation of Miranda. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 299, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297, 307, 100 S. Ct. 1682, 1688-89 (1980). Likewise, defendant’s statement regarding his medication, and the fact that he was not supposed to be consuming alcohol, was not secured in violation of Miranda. Routine questions posed during booking are exempt from the rigors of Miranda. People v. Abdelmassih, 217 Ill. App. 3d at 549, 577 N.E.2d at 864; see also People v. Fognini, 47 Ill. 2d 150, 152, 265 N.E.2d 133, 134 (1970). During the standard booking process, defendant volunteered the names of his medication, the reason he was taking them, and the fact that he was not to consume alcohol while on the medication. Although defendant had not been Mirandized at this point, and the officer testified that the information given by defendant was likely to be incriminating, an officer need not interrupt a suspect in the process of making a spontaneous statement in order to warn him of his constitutional right to remain silent. People v. Baer, 19 Ill. App. 3d 346, 348, 311 N.E.2d 418, 420 (1974); In re Orr, 38 Ill. 2d 417, 423, 231 N.E.2d 424, 427 (1967). Miranda requires warnings before police interrogation. Defendant was not interrogated. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.