Court Opinion

ID: 9406401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 20:05:38.110025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:30.427309
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 200911
                                            No. 1-20-0911
                Modified opinion filed upon grant of petition for rehearing June 30 , 2023

                                                                             SIXTH DIVISION

                                                IN THE

                                 APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                           FIRST DISTRICT

     THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                       )     Appeal from the Circuit Court
     ILLINOIS,                                        )     of Cook County.
                                                      )
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                        )
                                                      )
           v.                                         )     No. 09 CR 02019
                                                      )
     DELONDRE TOWNSEND,                               )     The Honorable
                                                      )     Brian Flaherty,
           Defendant-Appellant.                       )     Judge, presiding.

                    JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
                    Justice C.A. Walker concurred in the judgment and opinion.
                    Justice Tailor specially concurred, with opinion.

                                             OPINION

¶1       Defendant Delondre Townsend was convicted after a jury trial of first degree murder, for

      the shooting death of Brandon Riley on December 29, 2008. The victim was driving a van at

      approximately 1:00 a.m. when his driver’s-side rear window was shot out, and the victim

      sustained a gunshot wound to his head from which he later died. Shortly after the offense, the

      18-year-old defendant confessed to the shooting, and two eyewitnesses identified defendant as

      the shooter. However, 10 years later, at the 2019 trial, defendant denied being the shooter, and

      the two eyewitnesses recanted. No physical evidence connected defendant to the shooting, and
     No. 1-20-0911

         he was not arrested at the scene of the offense. After considering factors in aggravation and

         mitigation, the trial court sentenced defendant to 45 years with the Illinois Department of

         Corrections (IDOC).

¶2           On this appeal, defendant claims, first, that the trial court erred by not suppressing his

         inculpatory statements made at the station house on January 1, 2009, because his detention was

         a de facto arrest and the police lacked probable cause at that time to arrest him. (The

         questioning that occurred at the station the day before, on New Year’s Eve, is not at issue on

         this appeal.) Second, defendant claims that we should vacate and remand the case for

         resentencing, because the trial court allegedly gave him a higher sentence based on the victim’s

         death, which is a factor already inherent in the offense. In the alternative, defendant asks this

         court to exercise the discretion granted to us under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(b) to

         reduce his sentence from 45 years to the statutory minimum of 35 years.

¶3           In response to the first claim, the State argues that defendant’s station house interview on

         New Year’s Day was a voluntary and consensual encounter rather than an arrest. The State

         acknowledges in its brief to this court that it lacked probable cause to arrest defendant until he

         confessed. 1 Since the State does not argue that this was a brief investigative detention or that

         it had probable cause prior to the moment of confession, we must determine whether the

         questioning at the police station was a voluntary and consensual encounter; otherwise, the

         police lacked probable cause for an arrest, and the resulting confession should have been

         suppressed.

             1
              The State asserts that “it was at that time [of the confession] the police developed probable cause
     and arrested defendant.”
                                                          2
     No. 1-20-0911

¶4         If we find that the confession should have been suppressed, the State argues, in the

        alternative, that any error in not suppressing it was harmless because the jury would not have

        acquitted defendant after hearing the two eyewitnesses’ pretrial statements, even though they

        both recanted. The State makes no argument that defendant forfeited this claim for our review,

        so the harmless error standard applies.

¶5         In response to the second claim, the State argues that defendant forfeited his sentencing

        claim by failing to object both at sentencing and in a post-sentencing motion. Defendant

        acknowledges in his brief to this court that his sentencing claim is forfeited. However,

        defendant argues that his sentencing claim rises to the level of plain error because the evidence

        at his sentencing was closely balanced. Defendant observes that, at the time of the offense, he

        was only three months past his eighteenth birthday and was a high school senior, with a 3.2

        grade point average, no gang involvement, no drug or alcohol abuse and no juvenile

        adjudications. He had no convictions other than one misdemeanor in 2018, almost a decade

        after this offense. Defendant also argues that the trial court’s reliance on a factor inherent in

        the offense was a fundamental error that denied him a fair sentencing hearing. Defendant asks

        this court to exercise the discretion granted to it by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(b)(4) to

        reduce his sentence to the 35-year statutory minimum. This court permitted supplemental

        briefing by the parties on the Rule 615(b) issue.

¶6         With respect to defendant’s first claim, we find that the trial court did err in denying

        defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress and we cannot find this error harmless beyond a

        reasonable doubt. Thus, we vacate and remand for a new trial. Since we vacate defendant’s

        conviction on this basis, we do not reach the sentencing issue.

¶7                                          BACKGROUND

                                                     3
       No. 1-20-0911

¶8                                         I. Pretrial Motion to Suppress

¶9             Since defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion,

           we provide the circumstances of this motion and the ensuing pretrial proceeding in detail

           below.

¶ 10                                           A. Defendant’s Motion

¶ 11           On December 19, 2012, defendant filed the first motion to quash his arrest and suppress

           statements. The motion alleged that, initially, he was questioned at the Cook County Sheriff’s

           Department Markham district station2 (station) on December 31, 2008, by detectives and

           Assistant State’s Attorney (ASA) Maureen Delahanty and released the same day. The motion

           further alleged that on the next day, January 1, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., he was taken into custody

           at his home by a member of the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department, without a warrant

           or probable cause to arrest. As we noted above, the State does not argue on appeal that the

           police had either a warrant or probable cause at that time.

¶ 12           Accordingly, the motion moved to suppress the statements made on January 1, 2009, but

           not the statements made on December 31, 2008.

¶ 13           Defendant filed a second motion to suppress, on July 10, 2015, which was later amended

           on August 17, 2015, and again amended on September 16, 2015. This second suppression

           motion alleged that the statements made on both December 31 and January 1 were

           involuntary. 3 However, defendant’s appellate brief states: “That second suppression motion is

           not at issue on this appeal.” Thus, we do not consider it.

               2
                The Markham district station is located inside the Cook County Circuit Court 6th District
       courthouse.
              3
                At the hearing on this motion, the evidence established that defendant appeared to be having an
       asthma attack after giving his confession, and the police called paramedics. The trial court found that the
       statements were not involuntary, and defendant does not appeal this finding.
                                                            4
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 14                                        B. Suppression Hearing

¶ 15         On September 22, 2014, the defense called in support of the first motion (1) Officer Frank

          D’Oronzo, with the Cook County sheriff’s police; (2) Lashanna Fulwiley, defendant’s sister;

          and (3) defendant. We provide the details of both direct and cross-examination as necessary to

          examine the issues in dispute.

¶ 16                                          1. Officer D’Oronzo

¶ 17                                         a. Direct Examination

¶ 18             D’Oronzo testified that he had been a police officer with the Cook County sheriff’s

          police for 21 years. While investigating this offense, he learned that people of interest included

          men nicknamed Pumkin, E.J., and Boo-man. D’Oronzo was “informed who they were by our

          gang guys.” Detective Rafferty visited the home of defendant, also known as Pumkin, but

          defendant was not at home. On December 31, 2008, the police received a call from defendant’s

          mother indicating defendant was now at home, and D’Oronzo went there with Detective Ortiz 4

          and gang officer Terry Tabb to bring defendant to the station. D’Oronzo and Ortiz’s interview

          of defendant was not videotaped because, at that time, the police “believed him to be a

          witness.” Defendant provided “a written statement as a witness,” with ASA Maureen

          Delahanty present. After the statement was typed and defendant signed it, he was released. The

          police then picked up the person who defendant alleged was the offender.

¶ 19             D’Oronzo testified that, on January 1, 2009, Detective Stephen Moody, dressed in “a

          shirt and tie,” went to defendant’s home to pick up defendant again. D’Oronzo did not go.

          Detective Moody drove defendant to the station in a plain unmarked car. Although defendant

          arrived at the station sometime in the morning or midday, D’Oronzo did not speak to defendant

             4
              No first name was provided for Ortiz at the pretrial suppression hearing.
                                                         5
       No. 1-20-0911

          until sometime in the early afternoon. Defendant waited in the lobby or roll-call room, which

          D’Oronzo described as “a big room” with two doors. According to D’Oronzo, while defendant

          was waiting at the station, he was free to go if he had asked, as he was not handcuffed.

¶ 20             One of the reasons for bringing defendant back to the station on January 1 was for a

          possible lineup, but that did not happen. D’Oronzo did, however, interview defendant in order

          “to clarify some information.” Specifically, when the police interviewed the suspect whom

          defendant had identified as the shooter, the suspect adamantly denied that he was the shooter

          and adamantly denied that he went by the street name provided by defendant. D’Oronzo’s

          interview with defendant on January 1 was videotaped.

¶ 21                                       b. Cross-Examination

¶ 22             On cross-examination, D’Oronzo testified that, although the shooting occurred on

          December 29, the victim did not die until December 31, thereby turning the investigation into

          a homicide investigation at that time. D’Oronzo did not learn that the victim had died until

          after his conversation with defendant on December 31. When defendant’s mother called the

          police, she indicated that defendant needed a ride to the station. When D’Oronzo, Ortiz, and

          Tabb arrived at defendant’s home on December 31, D’Oronzo and Ortiz both wore a shirt and

          tie with their badges and firearms, while Tabb was dressed in jeans, a T-shirt, and a black

          tactical vest with “Police” written on it. After they knocked on the door or rang the bell,

          defendant came outside to speak to them. D’Oronzo asked defendant to come with them, and

          he agreed. The officers did not handcuff defendant, and they did not draw their guns. There

          were no other police vehicles present, except for the one unmarked car that they had arrived

          in. After being patted down, defendant was placed in the back seat, without handcuffs. Prior to

                                                       6
       No. 1-20-0911

          the interview on December 31, Ortiz advised defendant of his Miranda rights, and defendant

          agreed to speak with the police. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

¶ 23             D’Oronzo also testified that, on December 31, defendant first told them that he was

          with his girlfriend the night of the shooting and that he did not learn of the shooting until the

          next day. Defendant said that it was not until the next day that he also learned that his name

          was being discussed in connection with the shooting. Defendant stated that he was going to

          turn himself in, but he did not want to deal with the police station on New Year’s Eve.

          D’Oronzo indicated to defendant that he did not believe him, and an “interrogation” ensued.

          Although video equipment was available, the police did not and were not legally required to

          videotape the interrogation at that point because it was not a homicide investigation, and they

          did not know that the victim was about to die. D’Oronzo offered defendant the opportunity to

          take a polygraph test, which was performed on December 31 but rendered “inconclusive”

          results. After the polygraph test, the officers interviewed defendant again and told him that the

          polygraph did not indicate that he was being truthful with them. At that point, defendant

          changed his story.

¶ 24             D’Oronzo testified that, during the second interview on December 31 after the

          polygraph test, defendant told the police that he was not with his girlfriend. Defendant stated

          that he received a call from “E.J.” or Elijah White, and that, when the shooting occurred,

          defendant was with White, but defendant was leaving in his mother’s vehicle such that

          defendant did not witness White actually shooting the gun. D’Oronzo told defendant that he

          did not believe him. However, at that point, the only information that D’Oronzo had regarding

          defendant being at the scene of the shooting was the information that defendant had just

          provided.

                                                       7
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 25              D’Oronzo testified that defendant changed his story a third time to state that he was

          present when White did the shooting and then defendant left the scene. D’Oronzo testified that

          he believed defendant enough to have defendant’s statement memorialized in writing by an

          ASA and that, based on his experience, D’Oronzo would not have called for an ASA to

          memorialize the statement if he thought defendant was still lying. At that time, D’Oronzo

          thought defendant was a witness, and he continued his investigation based on that information.

          D’Oronzo identified the typed statement that was taken by D’Oronzo and Ortiz in the presence

          of ASA Delahanty and that defendant signed. The last page, which was also signed by

          defendant, contains a photograph of the person whom defendant identified as the shooter. After

          the statement was taken, defendant was released and allowed to return home, because the police

          believed he was a witness. D’Oronzo testified that, if they had thought defendant was involved

          in the murder, they would not have released him. Moody drove defendant home. Later that

          night, the victim died.

¶ 26              D’Oronzo testified that the next step in the investigation was to interview the person

          whom he now believed was the shooter: Elijah White. After learning that the victim died,

          D’Oronzo asked Moody to pick up defendant again the next morning, January 1, in case they

          also needed him. When defendant arrived at the station, D’Oronzo was in another room where

          White was being interviewed by Rafferty. White’s interview was videotaped because, at that

          point, it had become a homicide investigation. White was adamant that he had nothing to do

          with the shooting and that his nickname was not E.J. When White was offered the opportunity

          to take a polygraph test, White was “[a]damant about taking it.” White stated that he was with

          his girlfriend that night.

                                                      8
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 27               D’Oronzo testified that it was unusual for a suspect to be so adamant about taking a

           polygraph test. 5 Before the test was administered, D’Oronzo testified that he spoke to

           defendant again and defendant appeared scared. At this point, D’Oronzo did not know whether

           defendant was hiding the identity of the real shooter. Defendant was with Moody in the roll-

           call room, and they were watching a Blackhawks game on television. Defendant was not

           handcuffed. When D’Oronzo approached, he told defendant that he had some things that he

           wanted to clarify with defendant. D’Oronzo and defendant went to an interview room with

           Rafferty, and the rest of their conversation was videotaped because it was now a homicide

           investigation.

¶ 28               D’Oronzo testified that, during that interview which began at 3:49 p.m., defendant

           eventually admitted to being the shooter. The officers were surprised when they realized they

           had a confession rather than some clarification.

¶ 29                                                  c. Redirect

¶ 30               On redirect examination, D’Oronzo confirmed that, on December 31, defendant was “a

           person of interest,” based on a “source of information” who had provided the nicknames

           Pumkin, E.J., and Boo-Man. The “gang team” said that Pumkin was defendant and E.J. was

           Elijah White. The “source of information” said that Pumkin shot at the van. Based on that

           information, defendant was a suspect on December 31, when the officers read him his Miranda

           rights and questioned him. The possible results of the polygraph test were lying, not lying, and

           inconclusive. The result of defendant’s polygraph test was inconclusive, rather than lying.

               5
                The parties do not allege in their briefs whether the polygraph test was actually administered to
       White or what the results were.
                                                            9
       No. 1-20-0911

          Elijah White told officers on January 1 that he goes by E not E.J., and he offered no information

          about the shooting.

¶ 31                                         2. Defendant’s Sister

¶ 32              Next, the defense called Lashanna Fulwiley, defendant’s sister, as a witness. On

          January 1, 2009, Fulwiley was present at the house where defendant resided. Fulwiley did not

          live there but had arrived December 31 and had stayed overnight. Their mother, who lived

          there, was also present. On the morning of New Year’s Day, Fulwiley heard a loud banging on

          the door and opened the door to see two men in “regular” clothing. One of the men said that

          he was an investigator and wanted to speak with Pumkin. When Fulwiley looked at him, the

          man stated defendant’s full name. Fulwiley told them to “hold on” and asked her little brother

          to see if defendant was in the back of the house, and her little brother returned and said that he

          was. Then she told “them” to tell defendant to come to the living room because people were

          “here to see him.” The police did not enter the home, and Fulwiley “never opened the door to

          let them in.” Defendant came to the door and opened “the screen door.” Fulwiley explained

          that it was a screen door at other times of the year but that it had “glass in it *** because it was

          wintertime at that time.” The police said they needed to speak with him, so defendant stepped

          outside. They walked down the sidewalk from the house, and Fulwiley could see their lips

          moving but could not hear the words. The officers patted defendant down, handcuffed him,

          placed him in the back of their car, and left. Fulwiley did not see defendant again after he was

          placed in custody.

¶ 33              On cross-examination, Fulwiley testified that she was “uncertain” whether there were

          two men. As she watched the police and defendant walk away, one door was open, and she

                                                        10
       No. 1-20-0911

          was looking through the glass of the “screen door.” She stood in the same spot until the police

          left. Nothing obstructed her view.

¶ 34                                             3. Defendant

¶ 35                                        a. Direct Examination

¶ 36             Defendant testified that on December 31, 2008, his mother informed him that the police

          had been to their home and were looking for him. She gave him the card that they had left with

          her, and he called them. They asked if they could talk to him, and he said, “sure, you can come

          to the house.” The police arrived with five or six cars, but only two officers came to the house.

          Between 10 and 12 officers were outside. Of the cars, “a couple” were marked squad cars, and

          “a couple” were regular cars. When they knocked on the door, defendant answered it, and they

          asked for him by name. After he identified himself, they asked him to come to the police

          station, and he complied. They did not offer him the opportunity to go to the station on his

          own. Instead, the officers walked him to a car and told him to place his hands on the car, and

          they searched him. After the search, they handcuffed his hands behind his back and placed him

          in the back of a squad car. They drove him to the police station in the Markham courthouse,

          took off the cuffs, and took him to an interview room. The door of the room was closed, and

          he was not free to leave. The officer gave him a form with Miranda rights and told him to sign

          it. Defendant did not understand what his rights were because he had never been in trouble

          before, but he signed it because the officer told him that “the quicker” they got this over with,

          “the quicker” he could leave.

¶ 37             Defendant testified that there were two officers in the interview room, and they asked

          him if he knew anything about the murder at a particular intersection on December 29.

          Defendant told them that he had heard E.J. was involved. The officers took the coat and hoodie

                                                       11
       No. 1-20-0911

          defendant was wearing and said they were testing the clothes for gunshot residue. They put

          fluid on his hands and told him to place his hands on something. After defendant volunteered

          to take a polygraph test, they took him to a different room, where the door was also closed.

          There was never a point when he was alone without an officer or when he was free to leave.

¶ 38             Defendant testified that they typed out a statement for him to sign, which he did, and

          they returned his clothes to him. Defendant signed each page of the statement. However, he

          testified that it was not his signature that appeared on the final page with the photograph.

          Defendant was told that he could make a phone call, and he called his sister to come pick him

          up, which she did, and they went home. The police did not escort him out; he exited on his

          own.

¶ 39             Defendant testified that on January 1, he was in the back room of his house, when his

          niece told him that his mother said to come because the police were at the door. When

          defendant entered the living room, two plain-clothed police officers were already in the living

          room, and they told him they needed him to come with them again for further questioning. The

          officers did not give him the option of driving himself to the station. After defendant walked

          outside with the officers, they “checked” him for weapons, told him to put his hand behind his

          back, handcuffed him, and drove him to the Markham police station. At the station, he was

          taken to a conference room with one closed door. Defendant was never left alone without an

          officer present, and he was not free to go. After some initial conversation, defendant was

          moved to the interview room where he had been the day before. In the interview room, he was

          read his rights. Three officers interviewed him, and they were not the same officers who had

          transported him to the police station.

                                                      12
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 40               Defendant testified that “the first thing” the officers said to him was that they knew he

          “had something to do with it.” They never told him that he was there to view a lineup or a

          photo array or to provide information. On January 1, there were two or three interviews, and

          in between interviews, he was kept in the same room. He was in this room for a lengthy period

          of time, and he provided the names of other people who may have been present at the offense

          scene.

¶ 41                                          b. Cross-Examination

¶ 42               On cross-examination, defendant testified that there were 10 to 12 cars outside his

          home on December 31; some were marked, and some were unmarked. There were also 10 to

          12 officers outside; some were in uniform, and some were not. None removed a gun from a

          holster. Defendant had the nickname “Pumpkin,” 6 but a lot of people in the neighborhood had

          the same nickname. On December 31, the police asked him if he knew someone named E.J.;

          defendant did not bring up E.J.; the police did. Defendant told them that he was at his

          girlfriend’s house until the morning when he heard about the shooting.

¶ 43          Defendant testified that he was not anywhere near the murder scene at the time of the

          murder. Since he knew he was telling the truth, he volunteered to take a polygraph test. After

          the test, the police told him that the result was inconclusive and that he was probably not telling

          them the whole truth. Defendant testified that, after that point, “I didn’t tell them nothing else.”

          Defendant acknowledged that he signed a statement on December 31 at 7:55 p.m. After the

          polygraph test, the police called an ASA to come talk to him. However, after the polygraph

          test, he did not have any further conversation with the police about the shooting. The ASA

              6
                During opening statements, counsels spell the nickname as “pumkin” for the court; however,
       after page 246 of the record, the spelling becomes “pumpkin.”
                                                         13
       No. 1-20-0911

          arrived, and she “was on the computer,” and “they put [defendant] back in the holding cell.”

          When the ASA was finished, they brought defendant back to the small office where the ASA

          and an officer were, and the ASA showed defendant the statement. Before defendant signed

          the statement, the ASA asked him if this was “everything that [he] had told the officers,” and

          he read it and said it was. The ASA also asked if he wanted to make any changes, and he did

          not. After defendant signed it, the ASA told him he could call home and have someone pick

          him up. Defendant confirmed that the last page contained a photo of White but denied that the

          signature on the photograph page was his. All the other signatures on the statement and the

          Miranda form were his.

¶ 44              On the morning of January 1, after his niece came to the back room of the house to tell

          him that his mother said there were “a whole lot of police out here,” defendant came to the

          living room at the front of the house, looked out of the living room window and observed 10

          or 12 police cars outside. Defendant’s sister was sitting on the living room couch, and the front

          door was closed. Defendant sat on the couch, the police rang the doorbell, and his sister got up

          to answer it. Three plainclothes officers asked to speak to defendant, identifying defendant by

          his first and last name; they did not use the nickname “Pumpkin.” Defendant rose and went to

          the door, and the police stated: “we need you to come back down to the station for further

          questioning.” Defendant later learned that one of the officers was Detective Moody. Defendant

          replied: “Okay, I go with you.” After defendant left the house with the officers, he walked

          toward the police car, and he was patted down, handcuffed, placed in the back seat and driven

          to the station.

¶ 45              Defendant testified that, at the station, he was taken to a conference room, with a big

          table and a television, where Moody introduced himself. Moody asked defendant questions

                                                       14
       No. 1-20-0911

          such as what he did for a living, but Moody did not ask about the case because, as Moody

          explained, he was waiting for one of the detectives. Defendant’s handcuffs were still on.

          Moody was watching hockey on television, but defendant was not paying attention because he

          does not follow hockey. They did not talk about the game, and Moody never left the room. At

          some point the detective who Moody was waiting for came in, and defendant was taken to the

          interview room, where he was the day before. They removed the handcuffs, and Moody, Ortiz

          and D’Oronzo were all there. They started off by saying that they knew defendant had

          something to do with it. Defendant had more than one conversation with the officers in that

          room that day. During these conversations, defendant admitted to being the shooter.

¶ 46                                      c. Redirect Examination

¶ 47             On redirect examination, defendant testified that, on both days, he did not believe that

          he could refuse to go with the police; and, on both days, he was handcuffed, placed in the back

          seat, and not given the option to go to the station on his own. While at the station, he was in

          rooms with closed doors, with officers present, and not free to leave. The handcuffs were not

          removed until he was placed in an interview room. Defendant was not asked to view a lineup

          or photo array. Defendant did not tell the officers on December 31 that E.J. was Elijah White,

          and he was not shown the photograph on December 31 that was attached to his statement.

¶ 48                                         4. The State’s Case

¶ 49             At the close of defendant’s evidence, the State moved for a directed finding that the

          encounter was voluntary and, thus, the burden had not shifted to the State to show probable

          cause. While listening to the parties’ arguments on the motion, the trial judge informed them

          that defendant’s release from the station “would lead me to believe that he’s not a suspect.”

          The judge explained: “I’ve been doing this long enough to know that the police keep him there

                                                      15
       No. 1-20-0911

           for days at a time if they believe somebody is a suspect. So, I will let you know that, that

           weighs heavily on me.” The proceedings adjourned to permit the trial court to read the

           transcripts. On January 8, 2015, despite the trial judge’s earlier statements, the trial court

           denied the State’s motion for a directed finding and found that the burden had, indeed, shifted

           to the State.

¶ 50               On March 18, 2015, the hearing resumed with the State’s case. The State called Officer

           Moody, who testified that, in the evening of December 31, 2009, D’Oronzo and Rafferty asked

           Moody to drive a witness back home. Moody went with Detective Bernson to a conference

           room and said to defendant: “ ‘Hey, Delondre, I’m here to take you home.’ ” Defendant was

           not handcuffed when Moody entered the conference room, and Moody did not cuff him or pat

           him down. They walked to an unmarked, white Chevy Impala, and defendant entered the back

           seat. There was no “cage”; the car had regular front seats and a regular back seat. 7 There was

           no conversation during the ride except for directions.

¶ 51               Moody testified that, the next day, at about lunch time, Rafferty and D’Oronzo asked

           him and Bernson to go back to defendant’s house and pick up defendant so they could ask him

           some more questions. Only one car went to defendant’s house, which was the car carrying

           Moody and Bernson. After Moody knocked on the door, a woman answered, and Moody asked

           for defendant by defendant’s full name. It was Moody’s practice to ask for people by their full

           name rather than by a nickname. The woman shut the door, and then defendant came to the

           door. Moody told defendant that the detectives who defendant spoke with yesterday wanted to

           speak to him again, and Moody asked defendant “if he minded coming back with us to the

               7
                On cross-examination, Moody added that there was also no glass separating the front from the
       back seat. It was just empty space. Moody also clarified that he used the same unmarked police car on
       both December 31 and January 1.
                                                         16
       No. 1-20-0911

          police station.” Defendant replied “okay.” The officers did not place any restraints on

          defendant; they did not pat him down; and they did not have their guns drawn. Once at the

          station, Moody asked defendant to wait in the foyer or entrance area. This area has a door to

          either enter the station or “go back outside.” In the area were “warrant clerks” and “an

          administrative assistant.” The area has a front desk where citizens can ask for information.

          After Moody and Bernson left defendant to speak with D’Oronzo and Rafferty, no one stayed

          with defendant. D’Oronzo and Rafferty instructed Moody to bring defendant to the conference

          room and turn on the television, which Moody did.

¶ 52             Moody testified that they did roll call in this conference room, so the room had a

          podium and a chalkboard, as well as the television. While defendant was in the roll-call room,

          he was not restrained in any way, and Moody was the only other person present. Moody turned

          on the Blackhawks game and explained to defendant why the hockey game was at Wrigley

          Field, since defendant seemed confused about that. There was no conversation about the case.

          During the afternoon, Moody was “in and out” of the room. Moody would come in, watch a

          bit of the game, talk to defendant about it, and then leave. When Moody was out of the room,

          defendant was not restrained in any way, and defendant was in there by himself. After a few

          hours, defendant asked when the officers were going to talk to him, and Moody asked

          D’Oronzo and Rafferty, and then Moody relayed to defendant that they had said that they

          would be there in a minute. When the other officers came to escort defendant out of the room,

          they did not handcuff him.

¶ 53             On cross-examination, Moody explained that, since he was a detective at that time,

          rather than on patrol, he did not have to pat down everyone he placed in his car and that he

          generally did not pat someone down unless the person was “a suspect or possible offender.”

                                                     17
       No. 1-20-0911

          After Moody asked defendant if he would mind coming back to the station, Moody did not ask

          defendant if defendant wanted to bring himself down to the station, because “he just walked

          out and followed us to the car.” Defendant did not mention driving himself. Moody and

          Bernson were both dressed in plainclothes, with a badge and gun that readily identified them

          as police officers. The roll-call room had two doors: one that led directly into the foyer and

          one that led into the rest of the station. When defendant was waiting there, the door to the foyer

          was open, and the door to the rest of the station was closed. If defendant had asked to go, he

          could have left. If defendant had asked Moody, Moody would have told D’Oronzo and Rafferty

          “hey, this guy is leaving. If you want to talk to him, talk to him now.” Moody never said to

          defendant: “hey, do you want to go?”

¶ 54                                      5. The Trial Court’s Ruling

¶ 55             On April 23, 2015, after listening to argument, the trial court denied defendant’s

          motion. Prior to ruling, the court observed that, “contrary to what the defense argues, petitioner

          argues the defendant freely goes to the police station on the second time.” The trial court found:

                       “I believe that there is no Fourth Amendment violation despite what I ruled earlier

                 at the motion for directed finding. There is no Fourth Amendment violation at any time.

                       Defendant is not a suspect. They are treating him as a witness throughout this matter

                 until he then gives his videotaped statement to Rafferty.

                       So the motion is denied.”

¶ 56                                                 II. Trial

¶ 57             In this appeal, defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence against him

          and does not challenge the admission of any exhibit or piece of evidence at trial other than his

          pretrial statement on January 1, 2009. Thus, we only summarize the trial evidence below.

                                                        18
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 58               In sum, the government’s evidence at trial consisted primarily of statements by

          defendant and two eyewitnesses. Prior to trial, two eyewitnesses stated to the police and before

          a grand jury that they had observed defendant walk to the middle of the street and open fire at

          the victim’s van as the van drove away. The pretrial statements of both witnesses were

          memorialized in writing and in their grand jury testimony. However, at trial, both witnesses

          recanted. Similarly, defendant confessed before trial to being the shooter and then recanted at

          trial.

¶ 59               An assistant medical examiner confirmed that the victim, who was the driver of the

          van, died from a gunshot wound to the head. A police investigator testified that he recovered

          10, 9-millimeter spent cartridge cases at the scene, all fired from a semiautomatic weapon, and

          that one of the van’s windows had been shot out. The State did not argue a motive for the

          shooting, and the victim’s girlfriend, who was a passenger in the van, did not see who fired the

          shots.

¶ 60                                            III. Sentencing

¶ 61               One of the two issues that defendant raises on this appeal concerns the trial court’s

          remarks at the sentencing hearing. Defendant argues that, at sentencing, the trial court

          considered a factor inherent in the offense, namely, the death of the victim.

¶ 62               At the sentencing hearing on July 2, 2019, the State presented in aggravation a

          statement from the victim’s daughter and the testimony of the victim’s sister, who testified that

          the 23- year-old victim was “a father, a son, a brother and a friend.” In aggravation, the State

          argued that defendant lacked remorse, that the murder appeared to be unprovoked, and that

          defendant had tried to implicate someone else. Defense objected to the State’s argument of

          “lack of remorse.” The trial court overruled the objection, stating “[i]t’s argument.” In

                                                       19
       No. 1-20-0911

           mitigation, defense counsel argued that defendant was a good student, 8 came from a good

           family, had “no prior criminality,” and had already served 11 years in jail.

¶ 63               The presentence investigation report (PSI) indicated that, at the time of his arrest,

           defendant had a 3.2 grade point average in school, was on the basketball team, had completed

           the eleventh grade, and was a senior in high school. At the time of the offense, he was just

           three months past his eighteenth birthday. For two years during high school, defendant had

           been employed at Subway, earning $400 per week, at $8.25 per hour, but he had to leave due

           to his basketball commitment. As such, the PSI indicated that the “source” of defendant’s

           “employment status” and “income” was “Subway.” Defendant had no gang involvement,

           fathered no children, and spent his free time playing basketball and attending church.

           Defendant had no juvenile adjudications of delinquency, and he received time served for one

           misdemeanor battery on February 11, 2018, which was years after this case. Although he

           reported drinking alcohol on the weekend at parties and a “casual use” of cannabis, he denied

           having a problem with either alcohol or drugs. Defendant reported a close relationship with

           both parents and his extended family and that his friends were a close-knit group on the

           basketball team. The PSI author noted that defendant was “very cooperative” and answered

           “all questions without hesitation.”

¶ 64               During the hearing, defendant addressed the court and denied that he was the “killer.”

           Defendant stated: “Everything is an assumption, because wasn’t none of us present that night

           when this all happened.” Defendant asked the court to consider that, similar to the victim’s

           family, he had also been separated from loved ones:

               8
                Defense counsel asserted that defendant graduated high school. However, the PSI does not state
       that defendant graduated but rather indicates that defendant’s studies were interrupted by this case. The
       PSI states that defendant reported being a high school senior at the time of his arrest.
                                                          20
       No. 1-20-0911

                       DEFENDANT: “The same way how they deal with their father, I have to deal with

                   that with my father and my mother, too. Me not being able to see my mama, me not

                   being able to talk to my brothers, me not being able to talk to my nieces, me not being

                   able to talk to my nephew, that is that [sic] the same thing[.]”

¶ 65               After listening to defendant’s remarks and arguments by the prosecutor and defense

           counsel, the trial court pronounced sentence. The parties agreed that the applicable sentencing

           range was 35 to 75 years. 9 In his brief to this court, defendant argues that, in pronouncing a

           sentence “10 years above the minimum, the trial court found precisely one fact in aggravation:

           [defendant’s] ‘conduct caused serious harm’ in that the victim’s ‘family lost a loved one.’ ”

           We present below the trial court’s entire two pages of sentencing remarks, so that the trial

           court’s comment about “a loved one” may be placed in context:

                       THE COURT: “Okay. First of all, it’s not an assumption as to what happened. The

                   jury found you guilty, and I think the jury did the right thing. I think the evidence

                   against you was overwhelming, as far as I’m concerned.

                       What I find interesting here is how you turn yourself into the victim. You have been

                   convicted of murder. You shot this young man senselessly, for no reason whatsoever

                   that’s ever been presented to me, but all of a sudden, you are the victim in this case,

                   because you said you are gone from your family. They will never see their son again

                   and their brother or their father, whatever the case may be. You can still have contact,

                   albeit you will be in jail for a long period of time, but you can still see your family and

               Normally, the sentencing range for first degree murder is 20 to 60 years. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-20(a)
               9

       (West 2018). However, defendant was charged with committing the offense while armed with a firearm,
       which enhances the sentence by 15 years. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(i) (West 2018) (15-year sentencing
       enhancement when “the person committed the offense while armed with a firearm”).
                                                          21
No. 1-20-0911

         talk to your family and write letters to your family. So don’t turn yourself into the

         victim. That is the last thing you are is the victim.

                As far as I’m concerned, you are a cold-blooded killer, and as I sit here on the bench

         for as many years as I have been sitting on the bench, these shootings, they make no

         sense whatsoever. Everybody is brave when they have an illegal gun, but face someone

         face to face and go fight them? That’s something different. It’s the cowards that shoot

         them in the back and fire as the van is going by.

                But to say that you are the victim is preposterous. They lost somebody they loved.

         They will never see him. All they have is memories. You still have your family[;] you

         can talk to and write to and say things to and write letters to. There’s nothing more I

         can say, because it’s so outrageous, it’s so outrageous.

                I had an opportunity to review the factors in aggravation and mitigation, review the

         presentence investigation, consider the arguments of the lawyers, and the defendant’s

         conduct caused serious harm. [The victim’s] family lost a loved one. And I read here

         in the presentence investigation you were raised by a loving family. It’s not like you

         were thrown out on the street when you were 10 years old. You were raised by a loving

         family. You had all the advantages of the world. I see presentence investigations where

         people have not seen their parents where they were 15 and they are now 25 and they

         have no relationship. You had the relationship, and you chose to just throw it all away

         and be the murderer that you are.

                Considering factors in mitigation, the defendant had one prior conviction for a

         battery, so, as far as I’m concerned, he has no history of prior delinquency or

         criminality.

                                                 22
       No. 1-20-0911

                         Based on that, the sentence of the Court will be 45 years [IDOC], 3 years mandatory

                  supervised release.”

¶ 66              On July 30, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and this appeal followed.

¶ 67                                               ANALYSIS

¶ 68                                             A. No Forfeiture

¶ 69              Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the inculpatory pretrial

          statement that he made on January 1, 2009. As a threshold matter, we observe that he has

          preserved this issue for our review. To preserve an error for review on appeal, a party must

          both (1) object at trial and (2) raise the issue again in a posttrial motion. People v. Piatkowski,

          225 Ill. 2d 551, 564 (2007). This requirement “encourages a defendant to raise issues before

          the trial court, thereby allowing the [trial] court to correct its [own] errors” and “consequently

          precluding a defendant from obtaining a reversal through inaction.” Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at

          564.

¶ 70              When a criminal defendant has preserved an issue for our review, the burden is on the

          State to show that the error, if there was one, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. People

          v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 495 (2009). An error is considered harmless if it appears beyond

          a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to the verdict. People v. King, 2020 IL 123926,

          ¶ 40. If we find that the trial court erred, the burden switches to the State to persuade us of the

          error’s harmlessness. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d at 495 (“the State has the burden of persuasion

          with respect to prejudice” (citing People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 181-82 (2005) (the State

          must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent

          the error)).

                                                         23
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 71             To determine whether an error is harmless, a reviewing court may consider: (1) whether

          the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction, (2) whether the other evidence in the case

          overwhelmingly supported the defendant’s conviction, or (3) whether the challenged evidence

          was duplicative or cumulative. King, 2020 IL 123926, ¶ 40.

¶ 72                                       B. Fourth Amendment

¶ 73             Defendant claims a violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable seizures.

¶ 74             Both the Illinois Constitution and the fourth amendment of the United States

          Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by police officers.

          People v. Holmes, 2017 IL 120407, ¶ 25; U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6.

          Article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution provides, in relevant part: “The people shall

          have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against

          unreasonable searches[ and] seizures ***.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6. Similarly, the fourth

          amendment of the United States Constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure

          in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall

          not be violated ***.” U.S. Const., amend. IV. Through the due process clause of the fourteenth

          amendment (U.S. Const., amend. XIV) the federal protection of the fourth amendment applies

          to searches and seizures conducted by the states. People v. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 19.

¶ 75             With respect to article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution, the Illinois Supreme

          Court has chosen to “follow decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding searches

          and seizures.” Holmes, 2017 IL 120407, ¶ 25. “[T]he ‘essential purpose’ of the fourth

          amendment is to impose a standard of reasonableness upon the exercise of discretion by

          government officials,” such as police officers. People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261, 269 (2005);

          People v. Bahena, 2020 IL App (1st) 180197, ¶ 55.

                                                      24
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 76         If a search or seizure occurs in violation of the fourth amendment, the fruits of that search

          or seizure may be suppressed. The purpose of the fourth amendment’s exclusionary rule is to

          protect all of us by deterring fourth amendment violations by the police. Terry v. Ohio, 392

          U.S. 1, 12 (1968) (“the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment

          has been recognized as a principal mode of discouraging” unreasonable seizures for all

          citizens); People v. Flunder, 2019 IL App (1st) 171635, ¶ 40 (“The fourth amendment is a

          blunt-edged sword, but it protects the privacy of us all, both the ones with contraband and the

          ones without it.”).

¶ 77                                        C. Prima Facie Showing

¶ 78         On a motion to suppress, such as the one at issue here, the defendant bears the initial burden

          of coming forward with proof. People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶ 23. If the defendant makes

          a prima facie showing that the evidence or statement was obtained in an illegal search or

          seizure, the burden then shifts to the State to produce evidence to counter the defendant’s

          prima facie showing. Id. ¶ 23. However, at the suppression hearing, “[t]he ultimate burden of

          proof remains with the defendant.” Id. ¶ 23.

¶ 79         In the case at bar, the trial court found that the burden had shifted to the State. In response,

          the State called Officer Moody and relied primarily on Moody’s testimony to establish the

          voluntariness of the encounter.

¶ 80                                        D. Standard of Review

¶ 81         The standard of review for a motion to suppress is well established. In People v. Johnson,

          237 Ill. 2d 81, 93-94 (2010), as in our case, the defendant moved to suppress statements that

          he made at a police station following an alleged illegal arrest, and the supreme court explained

          the appropriate standard of review, as follows:

                                                         25
       No. 1-20-0911

                       “In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we apply the

                 two-part standard of review adopted by the [United States] Supreme Court in Ornelas

                 v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 *** (1996). [Citation.] Under this standard, we give

                 deference to the factual findings of the trial court, and we will reject those findings only

                 if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. [Citation.] However, a

                 reviewing court ‘ ”“remains free to undertake its own assessment of the facts in relation

                 to the issues,” ’ ” and we review de novo the trial court’s ultimate legal ruling as to

                 whether suppression is warranted.” Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 88-89.

          “Thus, we apply a bifurcated standard of review: (1) rejecting a trial court’s factual findings

          only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence (2) but reviewing de novo the trial

          court’s conclusion as to whether those facts satisfy the legal standard to warrant suppression.”

          People v. Hernandez, 2017 IL App (1st) 150575, ¶ 90 (citing Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 88-89).

¶ 82             “A factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the finding

          appears to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence or if the opposite conclusion

          is readily apparent.” Id. ¶ 91. “De novo review means that we perform the same analysis a trial

          court would perform.” Id. ¶ 92.

¶ 83             The case at bar required a credibility determination by the trial court, acting as the fact

          finder, at the suppression hearing. Defendant described the January 1 encounter as practically

          an invasion of 10 to 12 police vehicles and numerous officers. He claimed that he was

          handcuffed and watched by an officer at all times. By contrast, Moody testified that only one

          car with two officers arrived at defendant’s home on January 1, that defendant was not

          handcuffed or even patted down, and that, while waiting at the station, defendant was

          frequently left alone in a room with an open door, leading to the outside. The trial court noted

                                                       26
       No. 1-20-0911

          the difference in the factual claims and stated that he “believe[d]” there was no fourth

          amendment violation. This ruling indicates that the trial court resolved the credibility dispute

          in favor of the police. In our analysis below, we utilize the facts as determined by the trial

          court.

¶ 84                                            E. Encounter

¶ 85               “Encounters between police officers and citizens have been divided by the courts into

          three tiers: (1) arrests, which must be supported by probable cause; (2) brief investigative

          detentions, commonly referred to as ‘Terry stops,’ which must be supported by a police

          officer’s reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity [citation]; and (3) consensual

          encounters that involve no coercion by the police and, thus, do not implicate the fourth

          amendment.” Bahena, 2020 IL App (1st) 180197, ¶ 56; Flunder, 2019 IL App (1st) 171635,

          ¶ 25. The last category, which is at issue here, requires drawing a line between voluntary

          encounters, on the one hand, and fourth amendment seizures, on the other.

¶ 86               “[A] person has been seized when, considering the totality of the circumstances, a

          reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave.” People v. Oliver, 236 Ill. 2d 448,

          456 (2010). For a seizure to occur, the officer must have “in some manner restrained the

          citizen’s liberty by physical force or show of authority.” People v. Williams, 2016 IL App (1st)

          132615, ¶ 36 (citing People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 550 (2006)). Distinguishing

          between a voluntary encounter and a seizure requires a court to analyze how an officer’s

          conduct would objectively appear to a reasonable and innocent person. Id. ¶ 37. The

          “subjective perception” of either the subject or the officer involved is not the determining

          factor. Id.

                                                      27
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 87             “Our supreme court has identified different tests for determining whether a person is

          seized based upon” the different types of encounters. Id. ¶ 37. For example, “[w]here police

          approach a person sitting in a parked vehicle, the appropriate test is whether a reasonable

          innocent person would believe that he is ‘ “free to decline the officer’s requests or otherwise

          terminate the encounter.” ’ ” Id. ¶ 37 (quoting Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at 550-51, quoting

          Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 436 (1991)). “However, when the person is walking down

          the street, the appropriate test is whether a reasonable innocent person would feel free to leave

          ***.” Id. ¶ 37.

¶ 88             Our research reveals no separate articulation of the test when the encounter involves a

          police station. Citizens voluntarily enter police stations every day of the week, to ask or answer

          questions, to view lineups or photo arrays, and to receive or provide information. Not every

          encounter with a police officer inside a police station is a seizure. People v. Gomez, 2011 IL

          App (1st) 092185, ¶ 60 (the defendant was not under arrest, although he was waiting at a police

          station to speak to detectives). On a number line with voluntariness and involuntariness on

          opposite ends, scenarios where citizens walk into a police station of their own accord to report

          an offense or to receive information would begin at the farthest voluntariness end. Scenarios

          where a citizen enters a police station at the request of a police officer begin to move the notch

          toward the involuntariness end. However, among the facts that make this case so close to the

          line between a voluntary encounter and a seizure are the fact that the police transported

          defendant to the station, rather than defendant voluntarily proceeding there on his own, and the

          fact that he remained there for several hours. Gomez, 2011 IL App (1st) 092185, ¶ 59 (the

          length of the encounter and whether the defendant was transported in a police car are factors a

          court may consider). Our supreme court has found:

                                                       28
       No. 1-20-0911

                  “Generally, the following Mendenhall factors indicate a seizure without the person

                  attempting to leave: (1) the threatening presence of several officers; (2) the display of

                  a weapon by an officer; (3) some physical touching of the person; or (4) using language

                  or tone of voice compelling the individual to comply with the officer’s requests.”

                  People v. Almond, 2015 IL 113817, ¶ 57 (citing Oliver, 236 Ill. 2d at 456, citing United

                  States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980))).

¶ 89              On the one end, the following facts could be used to argue that this was a voluntary

          encounter. First, Officer Moody testified that he asked defendant if defendant “minded”

          coming to the station again, and defendant agreed. Defendant in his testimony admitted that

          the officers had asked, and he had agreed to go. 10. Almond, 2015 IL 113817, ¶ 58 (“there was

          no evidence that either officer used language or a tone of voice compelling defendant to

          comply”). Second, Moody testified that defendant was not handcuffed or patted down, before

          entering the back seat of the officers’ car on January 1. In contrast, D’Oronzo testified that, the

          day before, on December 31, defendant had been patted down before entering the police

          vehicle. Third, Moody testified that only one police vehicle arrived at defendant’s home.

          Almond, 2015 IL 113817, ¶ 60 (“the police officers’ arrival in [one] marked car, standing

          alone, is insufficient to create [a] threatening presence”). Fourth, this vehicle, which defendant

          rode in, had no cage. It was a regular vehicle, with a regular back seat and regular front seats.

          Gomez, 2011 IL App (1st) 092185,¶ 60 (“Defendant was not handcuffed or otherwise

          restrained and accompanied the detectives in an unmarked police car without a cage.”). In

          addition, D’Oronzo testified that defendant’s mother had previously indicated that defendant

          needed a ride to the police station. Fifth, two officers were involved in the encounter at

             10
               Defendant testified that he had replied: “Okay, I go with you.”
                                                         29
       No. 1-20-0911

           defendant’s home and, immediately after arriving at defendant’s home around lunchtime, they

           knocked on the front door and used defendant’s proper name. No guns were drawn; the officers

           did not arrive in the middle of the night; and Moody was dressed in a shirt and tie, with a badge

           that communicated his office. Defendant corroborated that the officers who came to the door

           were in plainclothes. 11 Almond, 2015 IL 113817, ¶ 58 (the two “officers wore plain clothes,

           and neither displayed a weapon”); Gomez, 2011 IL App (1st) 092185, ¶ 60 (the arrival of

           officers at 5 a.m. at a private home is “suggest[ive]” of an arrest). Sixth, after arriving at the

           station, Moody asked defendant to wait in a foyer, where citizens could walk in and out and

           speak to someone at the front desk. When Moody and Bernson left defendant to find another

           officer, no officer stayed behind in the foyer to watch defendant. Nothing physically stopped

           defendant from walking out the door to the street. Almond, 2015 IL 113817, ¶ 60 (after the

           officers’ arrival, nothing stopped defendant and others from moving about the store). Seventh,

           after Moody escorted defendant to the conference or roll-call room, Moody turned on the

           Blackhawks game and talked about the game. Moody testified that defendant was not asked

           any questions about the case and was not handcuffed. During his testimony, defendant

           corroborated that, while in the roll-call room with Moody, defendant was not asked any

           questions about the case and Moody watched the Blackhawks game.

¶ 90                Eighth, Moody testified that, during the afternoon of January 1, he was in and out of

           the roll-call room where defendant waited. When Moody was out of the room, defendant was

           by himself and was not restrained in any way. Gomez, 2011 IL App (1st) 092185, ¶ 60 (The

           defendant was left alone and “was not handcuffed at the station and was kept in a room with

               11
                  D’Oronzo, testified that, on January 1, 2009, Moody was dressed in “a shirt and tie.” Moody
       testified that, in addition to the shirt and tie, he also wore a badge and gun on his belt.
                                                          30
       No. 1-20-0911

          the door open.”). Ninth, Moody testified that one of the doors of the roll-call room opened

          directly to the foyer and that this door was open. Nothing physically stopped defendant from

          walking out the door, through the foyer, to the street, and then heading home. Tenth, D’Oronzo

          testified that, during the interview that began at 3:49 p.m., defendant eventually admitted to

          being the shooter and that the officers were surprised when they realized they had a confession

          rather than some clarification.

¶ 91             However, we find that the facts indicate that certainly, at some point during the hours

          while defendant waited at the station, this encounter crossed the line from a voluntary

          encounter to an involuntary seizure. People v. Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d 322, 353 (2008) (“Defendant’s

          voluntary presence at the police station escalated into an involuntary seizure in violation of

          defendant’s fourth amendment rights.”). “Illinois courts have repeatedly rejected the

          proposition that a person who voluntarily agrees to accompany the police to the station for

          questioning implicitly agrees to remain at the station until the police have probable cause for

          his arrest.” People v. Washington, 363 Ill. App. 3d 13, 24 (2006) (the defendant was not free

          to leave although she initially agreed to accompany police to the station), citing in support

          People v. Barlow, 273 Ill. App. 3d 943, 949 (1995) (the defendant was not free to leave,

          although he had originally arrived voluntarily at the station) and People v. Young, 206 Ill. App.

          3d 789, 800 (1990) (the defendant was not free to leave after arriving at the station). We do

          not have to determine whether he was, or was not seized at the moment he left his home,

          because the arrest and statement of confession in this case occurred hours later.

¶ 92             First, as the State argues, defendant’s release on December 31 would communicate to

          a reasonable and innocent person that he was not under arrest at the time of his release.

          However, on the morning of January 1, when the officers came back, their reappearance would

                                                       31
       No. 1-20-0911

          communicate to a reasonable innocent person that something had changed. Also, the fact that

          on December 31 defendant did not leave until he was told he could go would indicate to a

          reasonable innocent person that the same would again be true on January 1: i.e., he could not

          leave without permission.

¶ 93             Second, as we noted above, the police transported defendant to the station rather than

          defendant voluntarily traveling there on his own. Moody testified that he did not ask defendant

          if defendant wanted to bring himself to the station. People v. Gutierrez, 2016 IL app (3d)

          130619, ¶ 59 (the defendant was not free to go where, among other facts, he “was transported

          in the back of a police car”); Gomez, 2011 IL App (1st) 092185, ¶ 59 (“whether the defendant

          was transported in a police car” is a factor a court can consider in determining whether an arrest

          occurred).

¶ 94             Third, defendant waited a few hours in the station before his interview with D’Oronzo

          began. Moody testified that he picked defendant up around lunch time. However, D’Oronzo

          testified that the videotaped interview in which defendant confessed did not start until 3:49

          p.m. Compare with Gomez, 2011 IL App (1st) 092185, ¶ 61 (“Defendant was only at the police

          station for approximately one hour” prior to his arrest.).

¶ 95             Fourth, Moody testified that, when he and defendant first arrived at the station, Moody

          asked defendant to wait in the foyer or entrance area, to which the public had regular access.

          However, D’Oronzo and Rafferty specifically instructed Moody to escort defendant out of that

          foyer and to take him to the roll-call room instead. Thus, defendant was not permitted to remain

          in a public area. Washington, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 25 (factors establishing an illegal detention

          include that “the defendant was not asked to wait in a public waiting area at the police station”).

                                                        32
       No. 1-20-0911

¶ 96             Fifth, the roll-call room is where defendant spent the majority of his time waiting.

          While the roll-call room led to the foyer which, in turn, led to the outside, the roll-call room

          was an interior room in a police station that was not generally accessible to the public. The

          decision to remove a subject from a public area and escort him to a restricted area further within

          a police station would communicate to a reasonable and innocent person that his movement

          was being circumscribed. Washington, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 25 (in finding an illegal seizure, the

          court considered that the defendant was “placed in a conference room” rather than a public

          waiting area).

¶ 97         Sixth, Moody testified that, after defendant had waited for a few hours, defendant asked

          when the officers were going to talk to him. Moody then asked D’Oronzo and Rafferty, and

          Moody relayed back to defendant that they said that they would be there in a minute. Moody

          did not inform defendant he was free to go, and the reasonable implication was that defendant

          needed to wait. Gutierrez, 2016 IL App (3d) 130619, ¶ 59 (defendant was not free to go where,

          among other factors, “there was no evidence at the hearing that defendant was ever told that

          he could refuse to accompany the police officers or that he was free to go”); Washington, 363

          Ill. App. 3d at 25 (in finding an illegal seizure, the court noted that the defendant was not “told

          she was free to leave”). The circuit court found that Moody’s and defendant’s conversation

          was a “[k]ind of casual conversation*** between the officer and the defendant regarding the

          Hawks game,” and the State would have us believe that Moody had nothing better to do than

          to spend an afternoon watching a Blackhawks game, on and off, while engaged in casual

          conversation with defendant. However, the most reasonable inference from Moody’s presence

          in the roll call room is that it was to keep a watchful eye on defendant. See People v. Holveck,

                                                        33
       No. 1-20-0911

           141 Ill. 2d 84, 96 (1990) (“the record reflects that the show of authority by the officers . . . in

           guarding the interrogation room justified the defendant’s belief that he was not free to leave.”).

¶ 98                Seventh, Moody testified that, after the other officers came to the roll-call room, they

           escorted defendant out of the roll-call room to yet a third room. Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d at 353 (a

           seizure occurred where, among other facts, the defendant “was not permitted to walk around

           the police station without an escort”).

¶ 99                Eighth, D’Oronzo testified that, when he approached defendant in the roll-call room on

           January 1, he told defendant that he had some things that he wanted to clarify with defendant,

           but, defendant was not told he was free to go and a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s

           shoes would not have believed he was free to leave at that point. 12 Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d at 353

           (a seizure occurred where, among other facts, the defendant “was not advised he was free to

           leave even though the detectives testified that defendant would have been permitted to leave

           at this point if he desired”). Later, in the interrogation room, after defendant admitted that he

           had lied to the officers yesterday and deliberately misidentified the person who went by the

           initials “E.J.”, defendant asked the interrogating detectives to “go get” the person who

           defendant now identified as E.J. and then “come back and get me.” One of the detectives

           responded: “You’re staying here, you’re staying here, until we get him.” When defendant

           asked how long that would be, the detective replied, “[a]s long as it takes.” 13 A few minutes

               12
                   While defendant has not made an argument regarding his age at the time of the shooting with
       respect to this issue, this court is mindful that at the time of arrest defendant was only 18 years 3 months
       and after confessing and realizing that he would not be able to go home, cried for his mother: which
       could cause one to question whether an 18-year-old with minimum contact with the criminal justice
       system would meet the same standard of reasonableness.
                13
                   Later in the video, one of the officers stated that defendant would stay there until they located
       both E.J. and another witness, D.H. Since D.H. was a minor at the time of the offense, we use his initials.
                                                            34
        No. 1-20-0911

            later, defendant stated: “The longest I can stay here is 72 hours.” The detective replied: “May

            be longer, under circumstances. I could get that clock changed as much and as often as I want.”

¶ 100                 A recapitulation of our analysis is as follows. In Williams, 2016 IL App (1st) 132615,

            this court found that an officer’s demand to “come here” was enough to transform a street

            encounter into a fourth amendment seizure. Id. ¶¶ 6, 11, 41. The State points to defendant’s

            release the day before as evidence that defendant was free to go and that the officers considered

            him a witness, not a suspect. 14 However, the issue is not whether the police thought he was, or

            was not, a suspect. The question is whether a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s shoes

            would have thought he was free to go. In sum, we find that based on the facts listed (supra ¶¶

            92-99) above, the answer is no and accordingly this encounter falls on the involuntary seizure

            side of the line. Washington, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 24 (“No factor is dispositive and courts

            consider all of the circumstances surrounding the detention in each case.”).

¶ 101                                                     CONCLUSION

¶ 102                 As we noted above, the State acknowledged in its brief to this court that it lacked

            probable cause to arrest defendant until he confessed. Since the State did not argue that this

            was a brief investigative detention or that it had probable cause prior to the moment of

            confession, we had to determine only whether the questioning at the police station was a

            voluntary and consensual encounter. If it was not, then the police lacked probable cause for an

            arrest, and the resulting confession had to be suppressed. Since we find that the questioning at

            the police station on January 1 was not a voluntary and consensual encounter, we find that

            defendant’s statement should have been suppressed.

                 14
                    It is also interesting to note that at the end of the interrogation video, the officer was locked in the room
        with defendant and had to wait for someone on the other side to come let him out. Thus, if the officer could not
        leave that room at will, then defendant likely could not have left at will before the confession.

                                                                    35
        No. 1-20-0911

¶ 103             As the State did not argue forfeiture, we applied the harmless error standard. Although

           the 18-year-old defendant confessed and two eyewitnesses previously identified him as the

           shooter, defendant denied being the shooter at trial and the two eyewitnesses recanted at trial.

           No physical evidence connected defendant to the shooting, and he was not arrested at the scene

           of the offense. Since the now suppressed confession was, by far, the primary evidence against

           defendant, this error was not harmless. The error contributed to defendant’s conviction; the

           other evidence was not overwhelming; and the challenged evidence was neither duplicative

           nor cumulative. King, 2020 IL 123926, ¶ 40. Thus, we vacate defendant’s conviction and

           remand for a new trial.

¶ 104             Vacated and remanded.

¶ 105      JUSTICE TAILOR, specially concurring:

¶ 106             I concur in the majority’s decision and write separately to provide additional rationale

           to reverse and remand for a new trial because the police seized Townsend on January 1, 2009,

           before he confessed, in violation of the fourth amendment. First, as the majority explains,

           before Townsend confessed, an investigating detective told Townsend that he could not leave

           until police had located and spoken to Jackson and D.H. and completed the investigation. I

           would add that the detective also told Townsend that he could keep him at the police station

           for 72 hours and maybe longer, that as long as the detective was actively working the case that

           he could keep Townsend at the police station, and that he could charge Townsend with

           “obstruction” if he did not cooperate.

¶ 107             If the investigating detective’s command to Townsend that he was not free to leave was

           not dispositive by itself, there is more. First, police testing of Townsend’s clothing for gunshot

           residue is indicia that he was seized. Investigating detective Frank D’Oronzo testified at the

                                                        36
        No. 1-20-0911

           suppression hearing that Townsend’s coat and hoodie were not tested for gunshot residue, but

           in the video-taped interrogation of Townsend the following day, D’Oronzo admits that the

           police had in fact collected Townsend’s coat for purposes of gunshot-residue testing. See

           People v. Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d 93, 103-04 (2007) (taking clothing for purposes of gunshot-

           residue testing conveys to individual being questioned that he is not free to leave). The State

           does not attempt to defend detective D’Oronzo’s testimony that Townsend’s outerwear was

           not tested, but only speculates that Townsend may have volunteered to submit his coat for

           testing. I see no basis for such speculation.

¶ 108             Second, detective Stephen Moody stood guard over Townsend for the entire two-hour

           period that Townsend was waiting in the roll call room on January 1, 2009, for investigating

           detective D’Oronzo to arrive and resume his questioning of Townsend from the day before.

           Townsend was clearly seized at this point. The circuit court, however, characterized detective

           Moody’s presence as innocuous, stating it was “[k]ind of casual conversation it seems to be

           between the officer and the defendant regarding the Hawks game.” The circuit court

           misapprehended the significance of detective Moody’s presence.          The only logical and

           reasonable explanation for detective Moody’s continuous presence was to stand guard over

           Townsend so that he could not leave. The State would have us believe that detective Moody

           had nothing better to do than to spend two hours watching a Blackhawks game on television

           while engaged in casual conversation with Townsend. No reasonable factfinder could conclude

           that detective Moody’s presence in the roll call room was for anything other than to stand guard

           over Townsend. See People v. Holveck, 141 Ill. 2d 84, 96 (1990) (“the record reflects that the

           show of authority by the officers . . . in guarding the interrogation room justified the

           defendant’s belief that he was not free to leave.”).

                                                           37
        No. 1-20-0911

¶ 109             The State, however, argues that detective Moody testified that he left the roll call room

           several times for 5 or 10 minutes each time. Townsend, on the other hand, testified that

           detective Moody never left the room. Townsend’s testimony was confirmed by investigating

           detective D’Oronzo, who testified that detective Moody remained with Townsend in the roll

           call room at all times on January 1. Moreover, detective Moody is the same officer who picked

           up Townsend from his home on January 1, and offered the incredible testimony that he did not

           frisk or pat-down Townsend before placing him in the back seat of the police car. Detective

           Moody acknowledged that the police car did not have a “cage” and that Townsend was not

           otherwise restrained in the back seat of the car. Townsend and his sister, on the other hand,

           testified that Townsend was checked for weapons and handcuffed before being put into the

           back seat of the police car. By the time they picked him up again on January 1, 2009, the police

           were already skeptical of Townsend. On December 31, 2008, Townsend changed his story at

           least twice and investigating detective D’Oronzo told Townsend at least twice that he did not

           believe him. In addition, Townsend was patted down the day before, on December 31, before

           he was placed in the police car and transported to the police station. That is because, as the

           detective testified, a pat-down or frisk is part of police department policy and protocol in this

           situation. That Townsend would be placed in the back seat of a cageless police car,

           unrestrained, without first being searched for weapons when two detectives, including

           detective Moody, were riding in the front seat and the detectives thought Townsend was not

           telling the truth about his involvement in Riley’s shooting defies all common sense and is

           inherently incredible. Viewing detective Moody’s testimony in that light and considering that

           investigating detective D’Oronzo testified that detective Moody remained with Townsend in

                                                        38
        No. 1-20-0911

           the roll call room at all times, detective Moody’s testimony that he left Townsend alone several

           times in the roll call room on January 1 is inherently incredible.

¶ 110             This is not a close case. Townsend had been seized by the police before he confessed,

           in violation of his rights under the fourth amendment.

                                                        39
No. 1-20-0911

                   People v. Townsend, 2023 IL App (1st) 200911

Decision Under Review:    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 09-CR-
                          02019; the Hon. Brian Flaherty, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                 James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Gavin J. Dow, of State
for                       Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Appellant:

Attorneys                 Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique
for                       Abraham, Joseph Alexander, and Gerrard R. Burch Jr., Assistant
Appellee:                 State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

                                        40