Find Legal Information

SIXTH DIVISION

July 27, 2001

The State appeals the order of the circuit court suppressing defendant's statements to police. Onappeal, the State argues that the circuit court erred in holding that defendant's right to counsel wasviolated when police refused to allow a law student to consult with defendant at the police station. Wereverse and remand.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, testimony established that on March 20, 1997,defendant was arrested for murder. At around 2 p.m. on the following day, defendant's brother calledan attorney and asked him to represent defendant.

The attorney testified that he called the police station and spoke with an officer there. Theattorney told the officer that he had been retained to represent defendant but that he was leaving for avacation in Florida and could not appear at the police station to speak to defendant. The attorney toldthe officer that he did not want defendant interviewed further and that someone from his office wouldarrive at the police station shortly.

The attorney then told one of his employees, a third-year law student, to go to the police stationand speak with defendant and tell him not to answer any questions from police. The law student wentto the police station and told an officer that he wanted to talk to defendant. Since the law student wasnot an attorney, the officer refused to allow him to see defendant. Defendant subsequently madeincriminating statements to the police.

The circuit court suppressed defendant's incriminating statements, finding that the police hadviolated defendant's right to counsel by refusing to allow defendant to consult with the law student. TheState appeals pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)).

For purposes of this appeal, neither side disputes the relevant facts. Accordingly, we conduct denovo review of the circuit court's application of the law to the uncontested facts. People v. Chapman,194 Ill. 2d, 186, 208 (2000).

Two Illinois Supreme Court opinions, People v. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d 414 (1994), and Peoplev. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186 (2000), control the resolution of this case. In McCauley, defendant wasbrought to the police station for questioning in connection with a murder. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d at 418.Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights but did not request an attorney. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d at418. Unknown to defendant, his family had retained an attorney for him. Defendant's attorney wentto the police station and requested to speak with defendant. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d at 418. The policerefused to allow the attorney to see defendant and also failed to tell defendant that his attorney waspresent at the station and seeking to consult with him. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d at 445. Defendantsubsequently made incriminating statements to police.

The trial court suppressed defendant's statements. The supreme court affirmed. The supremecourt first noted that a defendant's right to counsel is guaranteed by article I, section 10, of the IllinoisConstitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,