IL: Passenger not being arrested twice told he could leave stuck around and incriminated himself

Defendant was initially seized when the vehicle in which he was riding was stopped, and he was patted down. Nothing was found. When it became apparent the vehicle would be impounded, the officer twice told defendant he could go and he was on his own. The defendant hung around and made incriminating statements which were not the product of a seizure. People v. Robinson, 391 Ill. App. 3d 822, 909 N.E.2d 232, 330 Ill. Dec. 519 (2009) rehearing denied 2009 Ill. App. LEXIS 675 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist., July 1, 2009)*:

Here, even if defendant did not have immediate access to a ride to leave the scene, a reasonable person in the same circumstances still would have felt free to decline the officers’ requests. In addition to being told he could leave more than once, defendant chose not to respond to some of the officers’ statements/questions, and he further advised Walker to revoke her consent to search the car, demonstrating that defendant himself felt free to decline the officers’ requests. Considering the Mendenhall factors as well as the other circumstances in the case, we conclude that defendant was not seized when he made the incriminating statements and that the trial court properly denied his motions to suppress.

[As stated by State v. Bacher, 2007 Ohio 727, 170 Ohio App. 3d 457, 460 & n. 2, 867 N.E.2d 864, 866 & n. 2 (1st Dist. 2007), Robinson “had the right to remain silent, but not the ability.” Ron White, Tater Salad Story.]

Defendant juvenile showed a factual dispute to get a suppression hearing over whether he was searched when the students in a class were ordered to empty their pockets to locate a ringing cell phone. Matter of Elvin G., 12 N.Y.3d 834, 910 N.E.2d 419 (2009).*

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with his wife in the visitation area of a correctional facility. State v. Rollins, 363 N.C. 232, 675 S.E.2d 334 (2009).

Minor errors in the showing of probable cause were not material to the finding of probable cause what was based on a CI’s direct observations in recent time. This was not a Franks violation. Roach v. State, 2009 Miss. LEXIS 199 (April 23, 2009)*, rev’g Roach v. State, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 538 (August 21, 2007), posted here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.