People v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 20 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. 4–14–0730.,4–14–0730.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Stephen C. COLEMAN, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

37 N.E.3d 360

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
Stephen C. COLEMAN, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 4–14–0730.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

July 20, 2015.

37 N.E.3d 361

John Milhiser, State's Attorney, Springfield (Dan Mosher, Assistant State's Attorney, and Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Linda Susan McClain, all of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

Michael J. Pelletier, Jacqueline L. Bullard, and Duane E. Schuster, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, Springfield, for appellee.

OPINION

Presiding Justice POPE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 On August 22, 2013, the State charged defendant, Stephen C. Coleman, with manufacture/delivery of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/5(d) (West 2012)) and possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 2012)). On July 20, 2014, the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to parole officers because he was not provided warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The State appeals, arguing the court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On February 3, 2014, defendant filed a motion to suppress statements he made to parole officers on August 6, 2013. At issue was defendant's purported statement he had marijuana under his mother's bed. Defendant argued his statement resulted from a custodial interrogation where the parole officers failed to advise him of his Miranda rights prior to questioning.

¶ 4 On February 26, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant testified he was visiting his mother at 546 West Miller Street in Springfield at approximately 9:30 a.m. on August 6, 2013, and was on parole at the time. When he called the Department of Corrections for his monthly check-in, defendant was told his parole officer was looking for him. Defendant provided his mother's address. Shortly thereafter, a parole agent, Mark Brady, and another parole agent, Mark Schafer, arrived at defendant's mother's residence. Defendant testified his registered address was 1338 North 8th Street and he had not changed his parole address.

¶ 5 Agent Brady asked defendant to provide a urine sample. Defendant and the two agents went into his mother's apartment. Defendant's mother and girlfriend were inside the apartment. However, defendant was kept separated from these individuals during the encounter. Defendant provided the sample in his mother's bathroom in Brady's presence. While defendant was providing the sample, Agent Schafer was searching what he believed was defendant's bedroom. Schafer found a lockbox with money inside. According to defendant, after Schafer found the money, Brady cuffed defendant. They then questioned him about the money.

¶ 6 The agents took defendant back into the bathroom. Shortly thereafter, they began questioning him about allegations he was selling drugs. He was still handcuffed at that time. They also asked if he had drugs in the residence. The agents did not advise defendant of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him.

¶ 7 Defendant testified he was not afraid of the parole officers and had been handcuffed (behind his back) for approximately five minutes before the agents questioned him about dealing drugs. The agents did not take out any weapons during the encounter and no police officers were present.

¶ 8 On redirect examination, the following exchange occurred between defense counsel and defendant:

37 N.E.3d 362

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: [Defendant], did you believe you were—when they handcuffed you, did you believe that you could leave?

[DEFENDANT]: Yes.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So you thought that you could leave when they had you handcuffed?

[DEFENDANT]: Yes. I hadn't done anything wrong.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I'm not asking you to admit that you did anything wrong. Did you believe you were under arrest when they put you in handcuffs?

[DEFENDANT]: No.”

Defendant also testified he was kept apart from his mother and girlfriend while he was being questioned by the agents. He could not hear them talking, and he did not think they could hear him talking.

¶ 9 After defendant testified, the State moved to dismiss defendant's motion to suppress, arguing defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case a Miranda violation had occurred. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss, stating:

“The investigation of this violation of probation was an appropriate investigation. I do find there was a valid waiver based upon People's 1, the plain language of the parole mandatory supervised release agreement.

Also, the court is clearly troubled by the testimony of the Defendant, that he did not feel at the time of the questioning that he was under arrest at that time. So with regard to Miranda, the Court does not find there's a prior violation [sic ] and that the burden has not shifted.”

¶ 10 On July 15, 2014, defendant filed a motion asking the trial court to reconsider its dismissal of his motion to suppress. Defendant argued the court erred in failing to shift the burden to the State to show defendant's questioning complied with Miranda or fell into one of the rule's exceptions. The court granted defendant's motion to reconsider and held another hearing on the suppression issue that afternoon.

¶ 11 At the hearing, the State first called parole agent Brady. Brady testified he is not considered a general criminal investigator. When he witnesses evidence of a new crime by a parolee, he calls the local police to work on the new crime. He never gives Miranda warnings to parolees during compliance checks.

¶ 12 Brady testified he did a compliance check on defendant at the Miller Street address because defendant had reported a change of address to that location. Brady testified he suspected defendant was selling drugs because of numerous calls the parole office had received. Defendant told Brady the apartment on Miller Street was his. Brady told defendant he was going to conduct a compliance check and asked defendant to provide a urine sample. Defendant agreed to do so and told Brady he would test positive for marijuana. While defendant was providing the urine sample, parole agent Schafer began searching defendant's room in the apartment.

¶ 13 While defendant was providing the urine sample, Agent Schafer found a “locked box” in defendant's bedroom. Brady took defendant into the bedroom and requested defendant open the box. Defendant consented and opened the box. Brady then handcuffed defendant behind his back. According to Brady, handcuffing a parolee during a compliance check is standard operating procedure. The box contained a large amount of cash and some other items. Brady asked defendant how he acquired a large amount of cash considering

37 N.E.3d 363

he was unemployed. Defendant said he earned the money doing yard work.

¶ 14 After asking defendant about the money in the box, Brady and Schafer asked defendant three or four more questions. Brady testified the agents told defendant they suspected he had been selling marijuana. The agents told defendant they wanted him to be honest with them and asked defendant whether he had anything in the home. Defendant told the agents he had some marijuana under his mother's bed. Defendant had only been handcuffed a few minutes when he told the agents about the marijuana. During the questioning, defendant was cooperative.

¶ 15 Brady then asked defendant's mother if he could search her bedroom, and she consented. Brady found boxes under her bed containing marijuana. After finding the drugs, the parole agents called the Springfield police to the scene.

¶ 16 According to Brady, the entire encounter only took 15 to 20 minutes. Neither parole agent drew his firearm. Brady testified they did not threaten, bribe, or trick defendant into making any admissions. They also did not threaten him with arrest or a parole violation prior to his statement regarding the marijuana. Further, the police had no involvement in initiating the compliance check or in how the check was conducted. Defendant remained handcuffed while they waited for the Springfield police to arrive.

¶ 17 On cross-examination, Brady stated he had several anonymous tips defendant was selling marijuana prior to conducting the compliance check. Defendant was reportedly selling marijuana from his parole address on North 8th Street. It was also reported he was going in and out of his car during these drug sales.

¶ 18 Brady testified no drugs were found in defendant's car, on his person, or in what they believed was defendant's bedroom. Brady acknowledged his report noted defendant was not handcuffed until after defendant said he earned the money found in the bedroom by performing yard work. While the agents were questioning defendant, he was not allowed to consult with anyone and was kept separate from his mother and...