Defendant’s statement six hours after his illegal arrest when confronted with a bogus GSR test was not attenuated. People v. Hernandez, 2017 IL App (1st) 150575, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 206 (March 31, 2017):
[*P129] In sum, after having reviewed all the factors, we conclude that the statement was not attenuated from the taint of the illegal arrest, (1) where the duration between the illegal arrest, as found by the trial court, was short and thus did not provide time for independent reflection; (2) where the event that prompted the confession, as found by the trial court, was the bogus gunshot residue test, and it did not qualify as an intervening circumstance purging the taint of the illegal arrest, since it was itself a form of interrogation occurring as a consequence of the illegal arrest and a form of misconduct; (3) where Miranda warnings were provided once at the start of the six-hour interrogation but were not repeated again, even when defendant specifically asked what his rights were; and (4) where the State introduced no evidence at the attenuation hearing concerning the circumstances of the initial arrest, and thus the trial judge, who had not presided at the original suppression hearing, had no information on which to determine whether or not the initial illegality constituted egregious police conduct, and where the police were on a fishing expedition during the subsequent detention.
[*P130] As we discussed above, in addition to the four factors that our supreme court specifically listed, we may consider additional, relevant factors. Supra ¶ 96. Further supporting our holding is the fact that we cannot condone the manufacture of false evidence by the police—namely, the false positive result to a fake test—which was then presented to the jury during the playing of the video.
[*P131] For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the statement was not attenuated from the illegal arrest and must be suppressed under the fourth amendment.