Court Opinion

ID: 9522304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:22:08.193181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:30.040394
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HALL, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I believe that the defendant’s statements should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. “A person is seized by the police and thus entitled to challenge the government’s action under the Fourth Amendment when the officer, ‘ “by means of physical force or show of authority,” ’ terminates or restrains his freedom of movement [citation] ‘through means intentionally applied’ [citation].” (Emphasis omitted.) Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254, 168 L. Ed. 2d 132, 138, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 2405 (2007). Courts look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure implicating fourth amendment rights. People v. Prince, 288 Ill. App. 3d 265, 273, 681 N.E.2d 521 (1997). The test of whether a seizure has occurred is based on whether, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have believed he was not free to leave. People v. Sturgess, 364 Ill. App. 3d 107, 113, 845 N.E.2d 741 (2006). In the instant case, I believe that the defendant’s voluntary encounter with police detectives escalated into a seizure where he was interrogated after receiving Miranda warnings and thereafter ordered to remain in an interrogation room, where he stayed overnight and was required to ask for permission to go to the bathroom. Under the totality of the circumstances, I do not believe that a reasonable person in defendant’s situation would have felt free to decline the detectives’ orders or otherwise terminate the encounter. See, e.g., People v. Booker, 209 Ill. App. 3d 384, 393-94, 568 N.E.2d 211 (1991). Moreover, I believe that the seizure was illegal because the police lacked probable cause to arrest defendant at that time. Probable cause for arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person arrested committed the offense; mere suspicion that the person arrested has committed the offense is insufficient. Booker, 209 Ill. App. 3d at 393-94. Furthermore, a probable cause determination may not be based upon the results of a polygraph examination. Booker, 209 Ill. App. 3d at 394. In sum, I believe that the defendant’s statements should have been suppressed because they resulted from the illegal seizure and there was no intervening event to purge the taint of the illegal detention. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.