Find Legal Information

THIRD DIVISION

AUGUST 14, 2002

JUDGE CERDA delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial, defendant, Melvin Centeno, was foundguilty of first-degree felony murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West1994)) and armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2 (West 1994)). Whiledefendant was found eligible for the death penalty, the circuitcourt found the presence of sufficient mitigating factors topreclude imposition of that punishment and sentenced defendant toa term of natural life for murder and a concurrent term of 30years' imprisonment for armed robbery.

On appeal, defendant argues: (1) the circuit court erred indenying his pretrial motions to quash arrest and suppressevidence; (2) the elicitation of testimony from the victim's wifeconcerning defendant's relationship with the victim's family, andthe prosecutor's comments on the nature of that relationshipduring closing argument, operated to deny him a fair trial; (3)other argument engaged in by the prosecution during closing washighly inflammatory and rendered his trial unfair; (4) thecircuit court erred in refusing to accept a proposed juryinstruction concerning the use of prior inconsistent statementsas substantive evidence; and (5) his sentence of natural lifeviolates the constitutional principles set forth in Apprendi v.New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348(2000), or, alternatively, should be vacated as unduly excessive.

We agree with defendant that his motion to quash arrestshould have been granted and, for the following reasons, reverseand remand for further proceedings.

In December 1995, defendant was charged with, inter alia,first degree murder and armed robbery in connection with theNovember 15, 1995, shooting death of Marcus Osorio.

Prior to trial, defendant moved to quash his arrest and tosuppress all evidence arising therefrom, including incriminatingstatements made to the authorities. Defendant further moved tosuppress his statements on the ground they were the product ofpolice misconduct and, hence, involuntary. Following aconsolidated hearing, the circuit court denied defendant'smotions and the case proceeded to trial in February 1996.

The record establishes that defendant and the victim hadbecome friends in 1989 and, in 1994, defendant moved in with thevictim and his wife, Monica Osorio. The parties' livingarrangement, however, was not conducive to their friendship and,according to Monica, the relationship between her husband anddefendant waned during defendant's stay. Ultimately, defendantwas asked to leave shortly before Christmas 1994.

By November 1995, defendant lived with his girlfriend, EliseDeLeon, in an apartment at 2954 West Belle Plaine in Chicago. Indescribing the nature of her relationship with defendant, Eliseexplained she bore the primary responsibility for the parties'financial obligations, paying the rent, utility, telephone, andgrocery expenses. Elise received no money from defendant, saveone occasion when defendant gave her $100, and never knewdefendant to have received any form of paycheck.

Elise further testified that at some point during the firsttwo weeks of November 1995, she observed defendant with a smallcaliber handgun, which he kept in a bedroom closet.

At all relevant times, the victim worked as a teller at acurrency exchange located at the intersection of Lincoln, Belmontand Ashland Avenues in Chicago. The currency exchange, whichcould be accessed by way of doors located of either Lincoln orBelmont Avenue, opened to a general customer area. The customerarea was separated by a steel cage that housed the tellerstation, where the business's currency and other valuables weresecured. Access to the teller area could be achieved onlythrough a single, locked entryway. Through this entryway, andjust to right of the teller's work station, was a doorway leadingto the basement, where a bathroom was located.

On November 15, 1995, the victim arrived for work about 3p.m. At the time, Lori Torres, the head cashier, was on duty. When Torres left about 7:40 p.m., the victim was the only personin the business.

At about 7:45 p.m. on November 15, Abayomi Olaleye was inthe currency exchange. After completing his transactions,Olaleye left about 7:50 p.m. Olaleye testified the teller wasthe only person in the business when he left.

The victim's wife Monica testified she became concernedabout her husband after he failed to return home after thebusiness's normal closing time of 8 p.m. Monica called GregRosas, the currency exchange's manager, and asked Rosas to meether at the business's location.

Upon her arrival, Monica did not see her husband's carparked in its usual spot. Monica, accompanied by her father,greeted Rosas and the group entered the currency exchange throughthe Belmont door, which showed no signs of forced entry.

Rosas noticed the store's clock was stuck at the 7:57position and eventually discovered that the circuit breakers hadbeen switched off. Rosas entered the teller's cage, which likethe Belmont Avenue door, exhibited no signs of forced entry. Inside the teller cage, Rosas found the victim lying on thefloor, dead. A subsequent medical examination determined thevictim died as a result of a close-range gunshot wound to theright temple region.

Rosas inspected the teller's cage and noticed the store'ssafes were open and empty of its contents. The teller's drawerswere also devoid of their paper currency. A subsequentexamination by the business's owner disclosed that a total of$36,860 was missing.

On the night of the incident, Chicago police detectiveRonald Yawger entered the business and inspected the teller'scage. According to Yawger, neither of the building's doorsshowed signs of forced entry. Yawger also observed no signs offorced entry to the teller cage door. Yawger recovered a spent.25-caliber shell casing approximately five feet from where thevictim was discovered.

Upon speaking with Monica, Detective Yawger learned that thevictim's overgarment, a hooded Chicago Bears jacket, was missing,as was the victim's vehicle. Yawger further became aware ofdefendant, who, according to Yawger, was considered a possiblesuspect. Yawger obtained a photograph of defendant and immediateefforts were made by officers to ascertain defendant'swhereabouts.

Elise testified that at about 9 p.m. on November 15, 1995,defendant called and told her he would be home shortly. At about9:30 p.m., defendant showed up at the apartment of Raul DeLeon,one of Elise's brothers, with two six-packs of beer. Elise'sother brother, Melvin DeLeon, was also at the apartment.

After drinking beer for about a half-hour, defendant andMelvin went to Elise's apartment. Elise was home at the time andthe group shared some drinks and food in the kitchen. WhenMelvin exited the kitchen a short time later, he saw defendantsitting in the bedroom counting a large bundle of money.

Elise, upon observing the money, confronted defendant. After Elise's persistent inquiries, defendant stated he got themoney from a drug transaction.

The following morning, defendant paid for a taxi to takeElise to work and then proceeded to the airport, where he paid$700 in cash for two airline tickets for a November 17, 1995,flight to Puerto Rico. Defendant used additional cash later thatday to purchase $3,100 in furniture and $850 worth of gym shoesand clothing at the Brickyard shopping mall.

On the morning of November 17, 1995, defendant and Elisecaught a 7 a.m flight to Puerto Rico. Upon their arrival,defendant paid cash for a rental car, and he and Elise went to aMarriot hotel, where they stayed for about two weeks. Defendantpaid the hotel an initial cash deposit of $500 and an additional$1,500 cash to settle the cost of the couple's stay. During thetrip, defendant made several cash purchases for various items,including clothing, jewelry and shoes.

Detective Greg Pittatsis eventually learned defendant andElise would be returning to Chicago on the morning of December 3,1995. At about 10:45 a.m. that day, Pittatsis, accompanied byDetective Lawrence Aikin and Sergeant Kajari, met defendant andElise at O'Hare airport. Pittatsis asked defendant and Elise ifthey would accompany the officers to the Area 3 police station,and defendant and Elise agreed. According to Pittatsis,defendant's presence was requested at the station so defendantcould be questioned regarding the November 15 crimes.

Aikin and Kajari transported defendant, unhandcuffed, to theArea 3 police station, while Pittatsis and Elise remained at theairport to await the parties' luggage. Aikin stated he, Kajariand defendant arrived about 11 a.m., at which time defendant wasplaced in 10 by 12-foot, windowless, interview room, located inthe station's detective area. According to the testifyingofficers, defendant was not handcuffed in the interview room,which remained unlocked at all times, prior to his formal arrest.

Detective Pittatsis and Elise eventually arrived at Area 3about 1:30 p.m. At about 2:30 p.m., defendant was interviewed byPittatsis, Aikin and Detective John Turney. Before initiatingdiscussions, Turney advised defendant of his Miranda rights anddefendant agreed to talk. The detectives questioned defendantfor about 45 minutes, during which defendant denied anyinvolvement in the incident. At about 3:15 p.m., the detectivesleft and continued with their investigation. Defendant,meanwhile, remained in the interview room.

After speaking with defendant, the detectives met withElise, who was in an interview room separate from defendant. According to Detective Pittatsis, these talks with Elise spannedthe course of several hours and revealed information regarding:the nature of Elise's relationship with defendant, particularlythe fact defendant was not known to have money; defendant'spossession of a small handgun a few weeks before the murder;defendant's custody of a bundle of cash the night of November 15;and the various cash expenditures made by defendant at theBrickyard Mall and while in Puerto Rico. The detectives'investigation, which also included interviews with Elise'sbrothers, further uncovered that defendant had known the victim,had been seen in the currency exchange prior to the shooting,and, on one of those occasions, had asked a store employee to usethe bathroom facilities.

The information gleaned from their investigation promptedthe detectives to search the parties' luggage, as well as leavethe police station and search Elise's apartment for the gun thathad been seen in defendant's possession. When their search ofthe apartment proved unfruitful, the detectives returned to thestation about 11 p.m., at which time Detectives Aikin and Turneyquestioned defendant a second time.

Turney again advised defendant of his Miranda rights anddefendant agreed to talk. Despite being confronted with factslearned by the detectives during the investigation, defendantpersisted in denying any involvement in the crimes, and thedetectives concluded their questioning about 11:30 p.m.

Detective Pittatsis also spoke with defendant a second timeshortly after midnight on December 4. Pittatsis adviseddefendant of his rights and defendant agreed to talk. Like theother detectives, Pittatsis confronted defendant with the factslearned during the investigation. Pittatsis testified that whenhe asked defendant how he could have killed his friend, defendantbroke down, admitting his involvement. After confessing,defendant was placed under formal arrest about 1 a.m. December 4.

As the detectives continued investigating the case,defendant remained in the interview room. From the time hisinitial conversation with detectives concluded about 3:15 p.m.,until the time he was questioned by Detectives Aikin and Turneyat 11 p.m., defendant was not interviewed about the incident. The detectives, who admitted they did not question defendantabout the crimes during the foregoing time frame, stated theyperiodically checked on defendant, bringing him food and drinkfrom the station's lockup area and allowing him to use thewashroom facilities.

Detective Pittatsis explained the area of the police stationin which defendant was located is restricted to police personnel. If defendant had attempted to leave, Pittatsis stated defendantmay have been stopped, particularly since he was not a policeofficer. Defendant never asked to leave the station and,according to Pittatsis, was free to leave at any time if he sodesired. Defendant, however, was never advised by Pittatsis orany other officer that he was free to go if he wished.

Detectives Pittatsis, Aikin and Turney each denied, duringthe pretrial hearings and at trial, ever physically abusing orthreatening defendant prior to his formal arrest. Pittatsisnever saw any other officer physically strike or otherwise abusedefendant, and further never observed any physical injuries todefendant's person. According to the detectives, defendant wastreated civilly at all times.

Assistant State's Attorney Lawrence O'Reilly arrived at Area3 about 1:45 a.m. on December 4. After discussions withdetectives, Elise and her brother Melvin, O'Reilly, together withDetective Pittatsis, met with defendant and the parties discusseddefendant's involvement in the crimes.

O'Reilly met with defendant again about 7:45 a.m., this timeby himself. Defendant related he had been given food, drink, andaccess to the bathroom. Defendant further assured O'Reilly hehad been treated appropriately and that the police had acted in aprofessional manner.

O'Reilly asked defendant if he would be willing to reducewhat he had related during the parties' initial meeting to awritten statement. Defendant agreed and O'Reilly prepared awritten summary of defendant's confession. At its completion,the statement was reviewed with defendant so defendant could makeany desired changes. According to O'Reilly, defendant signedeach page prepared and made several corrections, which heinitialed.

The written statement, which was published to the jury andin which defendant acknowledges his cooperation to have been freeand voluntary, related that on October 29, 1995, defendant waswalking near the intersection of Montrose and Damen Avenues inChicago when he found a small, silver .25-caliber handgun. Defendant retrieved the gun, keeping the weapon "with him everyday from that day on." In early November 1995, defendant showedthe gun he found to Elise.

On the day of the murder, defendant went to Metanky Realty,where he cleaned the premises until about 7:30 p.m. While beingdriven home by his boss, defendant noticed the car of the victim,whom defendant had become friends with in 1991, outside thecurrency exchange.

After being dropped off, defendant, who had been to thecurrency exchange a number of times before, entered the businessand asked the victim to use the bathroom. The victim opened theteller's cage door and directed defendant, who was carrying thegun, to the basement.

Upon returning from the bathroom, defendant noticed thevictim watching a basketball game on television. Defendant alsoobserved a large amount of money lying on the teller counter. Sensing the victim was distracted, defendant began stuffing themoney into his jacket. The victim eventually caught wind of thesituation and confronted defendant. As defendant backed away inan attempt to leave, the victim grabbed defendant. Defendantdisplayed the gun from his pocket and pointed it at the victim,hoping the victim would back off. The victim, instead, reachedat defendant, prompting defendant to fire the gun.

After shooting the victim, defendant grabbed the remainingcash on the teller counter as well as some currency located inthe business's safe. Defendant took the victim's Bears jacketand placed the hood over his head to conceal his identity. Defendant exited the building, got in the victim's vehicle anddrove north on Ashland Avenue, dispensing of the gun near aBurger King restaurant and eventually abandoning the vehicle.

Over the course of the proceeding two weeks, defendant usedthe money from the currency exchange for a number of cashpurchases, including furniture, the items at the Brickyard mall,and the trip to Puerto Rico.

During his discussions with defendant, Assistant State'sAttorney O'Reilly observed no blood on either defendant's personor clothing, and did not notice any manifestations of physicalinjury, such as swelling, scratches or cuts, to defendant's faceor body.

O'Reilly maintained he made no threats or promises todefendant in exchange for the statement and that defendant'scooperation in detailing his involvement in the crimes was freeand voluntary.

Throughout the pretrial and trial proceedings, defendantattempted to paint a picture of a police investigation bent onmisconduct, coercion and physical abuse. At the pretrialhearing, defendant testified that after voluntarily accompanyingthe officers to the Area 3 station, he was handcuffed and placedin a locked interview room. Defendant additionally claimed hewas not given food or drink, and was denied use of the bathroomon occasion, prior to his confession to Detective Pittatsis.

About two hours after being locked in the interview room,defendant was confronted by the detectives, punched in the chestand told he needed to provide some information regarding thevictim's murder. Defendant disclaimed any knowledge of thecrimes, and the detectives left, only to return periodicallythroughout the course of the day to allegedly beat and threatendefendant until defendant finally admitted his involvement. While defendant asserted he had been the victim of physical abuseby the detectives, defendant's claims were general and vague anddid not detail with any specificity the nature of themistreatment.

At trial, defendant testified he had planned to travel withElise to Puerto Rico well before November 15, 1995. While he didnot hold any credit cards, defendant maintained he had sufficientmoney, secured through a early-November 1995 drug transaction, topay for the trip. According to defendant, he went to an area baron November 15, 1995, and received $12,000 by the bar owner forhis participation.

Defendant testified that when he and Elise returned toChicago on December 3, 1995, they were met by three Chicagopolice officers. After voluntarily accompanying the officers tothe police station, defendant was placed in an interview room andhandcuffed to the wall. The detectives then left the room.

Approximately two to three hours later, defendant wasconfronted by detectives Pittatsis, Turney and Aikin. Defendantwas advised that he was at the police station in connection withthe victim's murder and that the detectives needed someinformation regarding a gun. Defendant told the detectives hehad no knowledge of the victim's killing. Turney and Aikin,without provocation, then hit defendant in the chest and face.

Defendant testified such physical abuse by the detectivescontinued intermittently whenever he denied any knowledge of thecrimes. Defendant specifically related each instance ofmistreatment, including an occasion when his sweatshirt waspulled over his head and he was repeatedly hit with a telephonedirectory in the head, neck and lower back. According todefendant, the attack caused him to bleed a "whole lot" from hismouth or nose and onto his sweatshirt.

At a point over the course of the beatings, DetectivePittatsis handed defendant a pen and paper and instructeddefendant to write out what defendant described as "preposterousthings that supposedly [he] did" the day of the murder. Pittatsis told defendant "this is what I'm going to read to you"and "what you got to say because if you don't say these thingsthe way I'm telling you, you won't leave this place alive." Because the detectives' threats terrified him and made him fearfor his life, defendant agreed to say whatever Pittatsis wanted.

Defendant was taken to the bathroom, where he was directedby Detective Aikin to "clean [himself] up," and then to meet withAssistant State's Attorney O'Reilly. Defendant maintained heapprised O'Reilly about the detectives' mistreatment but thatO'Reilly simply ignored him. As defendant told O'Reilly abouthis involvement in the murder, as concocted by Pittatsis,Pittatsis periodically interjected to change the informationbeing provided. According to defendant, Pittatsis amended thestatement to reflect what Pittatsis wanted said. While defendantadmitted initialing these amendments, defendant maintained he wasdirected to do so by Pittatsis and O'Reilly. Defendant furtherexplained he signed the statement because he "had no choice"under the circumstances.

Defendant acknowledged he called and visited the victim atthe currency exchange several times prior to the victim's murderand expressly indicated he was at the business two days beforethe incident. Defendant, however, maintained he never went tothe currency exchange on November 15, 1995, and specificallydenied any involvement in the robbery and shooting of the victim.

Defendant tendered Mark Boese, a forensic criminalist, andDr. Pravatchai Wang Boonlayangoor, an expert in DNA and RNAanalysis, to establish that the sweatshirt he had been wearing onDecember 3 contained droplets of his blood. Upon testing somestains extracted from the sweatshirt, Boese determined thesamples tested positive for the presence of hemoglobin, acomponent of bodily tissues and fluids, including blood. WhileBoese reported that the specimens were most likely positive forblood, Boese acknowledged the specimens could represent saliva orsome other bodily fluid. Even if the specimens were blood, Boesestated he was not able to determine when the blood would havestained defendant's garment.

Dr. Boonlayangoor testified he examined defendant'ssweatshirt, as well as samples of defendant's blood, to determineany DNA match. Dr. Boonlayangoor took a number of swatches fromthe sweatshirt and observed off-white stains that could have comefrom any bodily fluid. The doctor explained blood would bedepicted by stains dark brown in color and not appear off-white. The stains were never tested to determine the presence of bloodand their age could not be ascertained.

As to one swatch, Dr. Boonlayangoor testified the specimenprobably matched defendant, but explained the specimen had aninsufficient number of genetic markers to positively identifydefendant as the source. The composition of other swatches,according to the doctor, was consistent with defendant's geneticmarkers. Dr. Boonlayangoor estimated the results of his testingwere 98% accurate.

Following deliberations, the jury found defendant guilty offirst-degree murder and armed robbery. At sentencing, thecircuit court found defendant eligible for death but, due to theexistence of sufficient mitigating factors, imposed a term ofnatural life in prison for murder, as well as a concurrent termof 30 years' imprisonment for armed robbery.

Defendant initially challenges the circuit court's denial ofhis pretrial motion to quash arrest. Defendant maintains whilehe voluntarily accompanied investigating officers to Area 3 toanswer questions concerning the victim's murder, his presence atthe station evolved into an illegal detainment in violation ofhis constitutional rights (U.S. Const., amends. IV, XIV).

We initially dismiss the State's claim that this point hasbeen waived by defendant's failure to adequately raise this errorin his posttrial motion. Defendant's motion specifically setsforth the basis for the court's purported error and, as such, issufficient to preserve the issue for our review. In any event,to the extent defendant's posttrial allegations are deemedinadequate, the constitutional dimension of defendant's claimtrumps the State's assertion of waiver. People v. Cox, 295 Ill.App. 3d 666, 670, 693 N.E.2d 483, 485 (1998); People v. Follins,196 Ill. App. 3d 680, 692, 554 N.E.2d 345, 353 (1990).

Turning to the merits of defendant's challenge, we firstdiscuss the applicable standard of review. Ordinarily, thequestion of whether a person has been illegally seized forpurpose of fourth amendment analysis represents a mixed questionof fact and law. People v. Wallace, 299 Ill. App. 3d 9, 16, 701N.E.2d 87, 93 (1998); People v. Eyler, 132 Ill. App. 3d 792, 798,477 N.E.2d 774, 779 (1985). The factual circumstances of thedefendant's alleged seizure must initially be ascertained fromthe record, which may involve the weighing of evidence,assessment of witness credibility, and resolution of conflicts inthe witnesses' testimony. It must then be determined whether, asa matter of law, those factual findings support a conclusion thatthe defendant was seized in violation of his constitutionalrights.

While a reviewing court, when presented with review ofissues involving mixed questions of fact and law, must afforddeference to the circuit court's factual findings, the court"remains free to engage in its own assessment of the facts inrelation to the issues presented and may draw its own conclusionswhen deciding what relief should be granted." People v. Crane,195 Ill. 2d 42, 51, 743 N.E.2d 555, 562 (2001). Accordingly,while the court's factual determinations made in connection witha motion to quash an arrest as an illegal seizure must beaccorded great deference and will be disturbed only if they areagainst the manifest weight of the evidence, the court's ultimatedetermination regarding whether a fourth amendment seizureoccurred in light of the facts is a legal matter to be reviewedde novo. Brown v. City of Oneonta, 221 F.3d 329, 340 (2d Cir.1999); United States v. Galvan-Muro, 141 F.3d 904, 906 (8^th Cir.1998); see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116S. Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911, 920 (1996) (applying two-prong approach in reviewing trial court's ruling on motion tosuppress involving the legal issues of probable cause andreasonable suspicions); People v. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d 425, 431,752 N.E.2d 1078, 1083 (2001) (following Ornelas and applyingsame); In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37, 49-50, 727 N.E.2d 1003, 1090-10 (2000) (following Ornelas and applying two-prong approach inreviewing trial court ruling on motion to suppress involvinglegal issue of voluntariness of confession).

Defendant in the present matter, however, does not challengethe circuit court's factual findings. Rather, defendant, relyingon the undisputed facts in the record, attacks the court's rulingthat he was not arrested prior to his formal detainment. Sincedefendant mounts only a legal challenge to the court's decision,we examine the undisputed evidence de novo to determine whetherthe facts establish an unlawful seizure.⁽¹⁾ See Wallace, 299 Ill.App. 3d at 16, 701 N.E.2d at 93.

The fourth amendment protects individuals from unreasonablesearches and seizures. U.S. Const., amend. IV. A seizure, forfourth amendment purposes, is synonymous with an arrest, and anarrest effectuated without probable cause, or a warrant basedthereon, violates an accused's constitutional rights. People v.Williams, 164 Ill. 2d 1, 11, 645 N.E.2d 844, 848 (1994). Anarrest occurs when a person's freedom of movement has beenrestrained by means of physical force or by a show of authority(Williams, 164 Ill. 2d at 11, 645 N.E.2d at 848), and is gaugedby whether, in view of all surrounding circumstances, areasonable person, innocent of any wrongdoing, would havebelieved himself not free to leave. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486U.S. 567, 573, 108 S. Ct. 1975, 1979, 100 L. Ed. 2d 565, 572(1988); Williams, 164 Ill. 2d at 11, 645 N.E.2d at 848.

Detention of a person by the police for custodialinterrogation, absent probable cause and irrespective of whetherthe technical trappings of a formal arrest exists, intrudes soseverely on the interests protected by the fourth amendment thatthe traditional safeguards against illegal arrest are triggered. People v. Wicks, 236 Ill. App. 3d 97, 104, 603 N.E.2d 594, 598(1992); People v. Gordon, 198 Ill. App. 3d 791, 796, 556 N.E.2d573, 576 (1990). In determining whether a person was illegallydetained, the coercive conduct of the police as a whole isconsidered (People v. Bass, 257 Ill. App. 3d 893, 898, 629 N.E.2d592, 596 (1994)), and a number of factors, not one beingdispositive, are examined including: (1) the time, place, length,mood and mode of the police interrogation; (2) the placement ofthe defendant at the police station; (3) the number of policeofficers present; (4) any indicia of formal arrest or physicalrestraint; (5) the intent, knowledge, and investigative focus ofthe officers; and (6) statements and nonverbal conduct of thepolice relating to defendant's freedom to leave. People v. Ball,322 Ill. App. 3d 521, 537, 750 N.E.2d 719, 732 (2001); People v.Williams, 303 Ill. App. 3d 33, 40, 707 N.E.2d 679, 684 (1999);People v. Prince, 288 Ill. App. 3d 265, 273, 681 N.E.2d 521, 527(1997).

The police undoubtedly considered defendant the primary, ifnot sole, suspect shortly after commission of the crimes. Indeed, Detective Pittatsis acknowledged the purpose of meetingdefendant at the airport on December 3 and requesting hispresence at the police station was to question defendant aboutthe incident.

The events proceeding defendant's arrival at the Area 3station strongly suggest defendant was brought there forinvestigatory purposes. After defendant denied any knowledge ofor involvement in the crimes after a 45-minute conversation, thedetectives never told defendant he was free to leave. Certainly,the detectives' stated purpose of having defendant accompany themto the police station was achieved when defendant denied anyknowledge of the crimes and failed to provide any informationthat would have implicated himself. Rather than advisingdefendant he could leave or come back later, the detectives letdefendant sit in the small, windowless interview room for anextended period of time. Defendant, in fact, remained in theinterview room for over 7