People v. Jose A. (In re Jose A.)

• Decision Date: 18 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. 2-18-0170,2-18-0170
• Parties: IN RE JOSE A., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jose A., Respondent-Appellee).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2018 IL App (2d) 180170

133 N.E.3d 1137

433 Ill.Dec. 857

IN RE JOSE A., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jose A., Respondent-Appellee).

No. 2-18-0170

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Opinion filed October 18, 2018

Michael G. Nerheim, State’s Attorney, of Waukegan (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Ivan O. Taylor Jr., of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Lilien, and Sherry R. Silvern, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellee.

PRESIDING JUSTICE HUDSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In a petition for adjudication of wardship, respondent, Jose A., was charged with delivery of a controlled substance ( 720 ILCS 570/407(b)(5) (West 2016) ) and unlawful possession of a controlled substance ( 720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2016) ). Respondent filed a motion to suppress statements, alleging that at two separate interviews—one at his high school and one at a police station—he was subjected to custodial interrogations in violation of section 5-401.5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) ( 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016) ). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements. The State filed a certificate of impairment and appealed. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the trial court properly suppressed the statement respondent made at the police station but erred in suppressing the statement respondent made at the high school. As a result, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this matter for further proceedings.¹

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On April 6, 2017, a teacher at Lake Zurich High School suspected that a student was under the influence of "something." The teacher contacted Tiffany Reagan and Matthew Aiello, deans at the high school, to investigate the situation. Believing that the student was under the influence of alcohol, Deans Reagan and Aiello called Mark Frey, an officer with the Lake Zurich Police Department and the resource officer assigned to the school, to bring a Breathalyzer machine to the school. Officer Frey was unable to assist at that time, so he instructed the deans to call the police department and request another officer for assistance. Ultimately, Deans Reagan and Aiello learned that the student had taken Xanax. The student informed the deans that respondent provided the substance to her in the school library. During the investigation, drugs were seized from other students, some of whom stated that they had obtained the substances from respondent.

¶ 4 When the investigation began, respondent was off the high school's premises to attend classes at the College of Lake County. Deans Reagan and Aiello waited outside the main entrance of the high school for respondent to return. When respondent's bus arrived, Deans Reagan and Aiello "retrieved" respondent and brought him to Aiello's office, where they and Assistant Principal Pikul began questioning him. Respondent was told that he was under investigation for possessing or delivering Xanax. Respondent initially denied the allegations, and a search of respondent's backpack yielded only an empty tin for mints. After the search of respondent's backpack, Dean Reagan and Assistant Principal Pikul continued questioning respondent. Respondent eventually admitted that he had possessed pills and given some to a student. Respondent was not allowed to return to class that day and was suspended for two weeks. At the time of these events, respondent was six days shy of his seventeenth birthday.

¶ 5 After respondent's statement, school personnel waited for Officer Frey so that he could conduct a pat-down search of respondent's person. Officer Frey estimated that he arrived between 45 and 60 minutes after respondent was escorted off the bus. Upon Officer Frey's arrival, Deans Reagan and Aiello informed him of their investigation. Respondent was waiting in the student-support center, which Officer Frey described as an "in-school detention room." Officer Frey testified that there is no hallway access to or from the student-support center. To exit the area, an individual must walk through a suite of rooms including the deans' offices. Respondent's parents and his adult brother were advised of and present for the pat-down. According to Officer Frey, Dean Reagan escorted respondent from the student-support center to her office for the pat-down. According to respondent's mother, Officer Frey escorted respondent. Prior to the pat-down, Officer Frey told respondent that he was going to search him, but he did not ask for his permission. Officer Frey did not find anything on respondent's person, and he did not have a conversation with respondent at that time.

¶ 6 Deans Reagan and Aiello informed Officer Frey that the delivery of the drugs had occurred in the library. Therefore, immediately following the pat-down, Officer Frey went to his office in the school, located in the same suite of rooms as the deans' offices, to search the school's video security system. Officer Frey located a video of the library, showing four individuals sitting at a table "looking around anxiously." Officer Frey testified that the video shows respondent from the back. Respondent is seen "playing with something," looking down, and then handing something across the table to the student involved in the morning incident. Officer Frey admitted that the video was grainy and that he could not see what was being passed, but he claimed that the video corroborated information received from students. Officer Frey estimated that it took him 15 minutes to locate the video.

¶ 7 Officer Frey gave the video to Deans Reagan and Aiello. Officer Frey returned to his office while the deans viewed the video with respondent's parents. Without viewing the video, but having been told that there was a video, respondent corroborated the events depicted in the video. After being advised that the school's investigation was complete, Officer Frey returned to Dean Reagan's office. Officer Frey then informed respondent and his family that respondent would have to come to the police station for booking. Officer Frey told respondent that he would be in contact to arrange a date for those procedures. Officer Frey testified that he wanted to book respondent "[b]ecause [respondent] was in possession of a controlled substance and distributed it to—that I had the evidence and probable cause to have to charge him with those crimes. And instead of taking him into custody right then, I allowed him the ability if he wanted to contact a lawyer or anybody else that he would be able to and set up a meeting at a later time." Officer Frey acknowledged that at no point during his involvement at the high school did he tell respondent or his parents that respondent was free to leave.

¶ 8 Respondent's mother was subsequently contacted by Officer Frey, who requested that she bring respondent to the Lake Zurich Police Department to answer some questions and be fingerprinted. On April 13, 2017, respondent and his mother went to the police station. Officer Frey met respondent and his mother in the lobby of the police station and, at the request of respondent's mother, called for a translator. It took approximately 25 minutes for a police officer from the Kildeer Police Department to arrive to translate. Once the translating officer arrived, Officer Frey escorted respondent, respondent's mother, and the translating officer to an interview room adjacent to the lobby.

¶ 9 Officer Frey described the interview room as follows:

"It was [sic ] an unlocked door. It is accessible to the public. It is not in the secured area by any means. The door was unlocked. I had to unlock it to get in, but then it was left unlocked while we were in there. There is fingerprint equipment out for other purposes in the police department, and there is a table with four chairs. So it is sort of as [sic ] an area where we can talk with somebody that's kind of secluded from obviously the public lobby area."

Officer Frey added that the room is typically used when someone comes to the police station to make a report or for "private conversation" between a police officer and a member of the public. Officer Frey said that he also uses the room to interview suspects before taking them into custody.

¶ 10 Officer Frey explained that respondent was at the police station so that he could be "booked and processed for the charges of possession of a controlled substance and the distribution of [a] controlled substance." During the interview, Officer Frey was dressed in plain clothes, the same way he dresses while on duty at the high school. In addition, Officer Frey was armed with his duty pistol and carrying handcuffs. In the interview room, Officer Frey read respondent the juvenile Miranda form (see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ) and then questioned him for 15 minutes regarding the incident at the school.² Officer Frey testified that he was aware of a new statutory recording requirement, effective in 2017 (see 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(b) (West 2016) ), but that he did not record the interview, because he did not consider respondent to be in custody. Officer Frey admitted nevertheless that he was seeking incriminating information from respondent. After the interview concluded, Officer Frey took respondent to the station's secure area to be booked and fingerprinted. Respondent was permitted to leave the station with his mother after further juvenile court procedures were explained to him. Officer Frey estimated that respondent was at the station for a total of 50 to 55 minutes.

¶ 11 After hearing the evidence, the trial court noted that it had considered People's exhibit No. 1 (the juvenile Miranda form) and respondent's exhibit No. 1 (the library security video) as well as the witness testimony. The court first addressed...