People v. Vasquez

• Decision Date: 14 July 2009
• Docket Number: No. 2-07-1204.,2-07-1204.
• Citation: 913 N.E.2d 60,393 Ill. App. 3d 185
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandra VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

913 N.E.2d 60

393 Ill. App. 3d 185

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandra VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2-07-1204.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

July 14, 2009.

Eric C. Weis, Kendall County State's Attorney, Yorkville, Lawrence M. Bauer, Deputy Director, Gregory L. Slovacek, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, for the People.

Kathleen Colton, Law Offices of Kathleen Colton, Ltd., Batavia, for Sandra Vasquez.

Justice JORGENSEN delivered the opinion of the court:

The State appeals from an order of the circuit court of Kendall County suppressing statements made by defendant, Sandra Vasquez, during a videotaped interview with police. The interview took place in a room in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a hospital where defendant was recovering from injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident that claimed the lives of five others. At the time of the interview, defendant had already been ticketed for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2006)) and had been released on a recognizance bond. She was later charged—first by information and then by indictment—with multiple counts of aggravated DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(C), (d)(1)(F) (West 2006)) and reckless homicide (720 ILCS 5/9-3(a) (West 2006)). At issue in this appeal is whether defendant's statements were taken in violation of her right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), or under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. VI). We conclude that there was no violation of either right and that the suppression of defendant's videotaped statements was error. Accordingly, we reverse the suppression order and remand for further proceedings.

The accident occurred on Route 31 in Oswego during the early morning hours of February 11, 2007. Only a single vehicle was involved. At the suppression hearing, Oswego police officer Chad Vargas testified that he investigated the accident. He initially spent some time at the accident site, and at about 3:30 a.m. he accompanied another Oswego police officer, Jason Bastin, to an Aurora hospital where defendant and another survivor of the accident, Arielle Rexford, had been taken for treatment. Bastin spoke with Rexford, and Vargas briefly spoke with defendant in the emergency room. Vargas asked defendant if she had driven the vehicle involved in the accident. She said that she was not driving, because she was too drunk; someone named James was driving. Following that conversation, Vargas conferred with Bastin, who reported that Rexford had described the driver of the vehicle as a Hispanic woman wearing a red jacket. Vargas had seen defendant wearing a red jacket at the accident site. Vargas and Bastin then approached defendant, and Vargas advised her that a witness had indicated that she was the driver. Defendant stated that she did not like the way James was driving, so she had him pull over, and she got behind the wheel. Defendant stated that she was probably driving when the accident occurred, but she later indicated that she could not remember.

Oswego police officer Jeff Burgner testified that, on the date of the accident, he was assigned to the Kendall County Major Crimes Task Force (Task Force). At 8 or 9 a.m. that day he attended a briefing with other law enforcement officers, including John Mall, a detective with the Oswego police department. Bob Dore, an assistant State's Attorney, was also present. Burgner testified that he could not recall whether Dore asked him to interview Vasquez. After reviewing a police report that he had prepared, Burgner indicated that both his supervisor on the Task Force and Dore requested that he interview defendant. At the briefing, Burgner learned that the accident had resulted in fatalities and that defendant had been ticketed for DUI and released on her own recognizance.

After the briefing, Burgner and Mall traveled to the hospital where both defendant and Rexford were being treated. Burgner and Mall were not in uniform; both were wearing jeans and "polo-style" shirts. Burgner had a holstered handgun at his hip, and he believed that Mall did also. Burgner had no occasion to remove his weapon from its holster that day. Burgner and Mall arrived at the hospital at about 10 or 11 a.m. and Burgner had a conversation with Rexford. After that conversation, Burgner spoke with a registered nurse at the nurse's station in the ICU. The nurse advised Burgner where defendant's room was located and did not indicate any reason why Burgner and Mall could not speak with defendant. Burgner testified that he and Mall visited defendant in her room at about 1 p.m. The room had a sliding glass door with a curtain for privacy. Burgner did not indicate whether the door was open or closed, or whether the curtain was drawn, when he and Mall reached defendant's room.

Burgner and Mall introduced themselves, and Burgner explained that they had come to speak with defendant about the accident. Defendant was in bed, and her parents were in the room. Burgner asked defendant's parents to leave while he and Mall spoke with defendant. Defendant's parents complied with the request. The conversation that followed was recorded on videotape. Burgner advised defendant that they were going to have a "Q & A" session; he and Mall were going to ask her questions and she would be able to ask them questions. Burgner further stated, "Due to the fact, you know, obviously, that we're sitting here and you can't, obviously, get up and walk out [inaudible] can't walk out of the room on your own, there's something I need to read to you * * * and as a courtesy to you, I'm gonna read it over to you, and I'm gonna obviously ask if you have any questions and understand it." Reading from a preprinted form, and speaking very quickly, Burgner recited the Miranda warnings. He then asked defendant, "Do you understand those? Do you have any questions about those?" Defendant shook her head to indicate "no." Burgner testified that he did not know whether defendant had shaken her head to indicate that she had no questions or to indicate that she did not understand her rights. The questioning that followed lasted roughly 35 minutes, during which time defendant related that she was, in fact, behind the wheel at the time of the accident. About 25 minutes into the interview (after acknowledging that she was driving when the accident occurred), defendant stated, "I don't want to talk any more." Burgner then told defendant that she could take a break. Defendant indicated that she wanted to see her mother, but almost immediately asked Burgner if he knew what was going to happen to her. Burgner indicated that he could not answer because it was up to the State's Attorney (not Burgner) to decide. However, Burgner explained to defendant that she had been arrested for DUI and released on her own recognizance, meaning that she was "technically" free to leave and that she could go home immediately if her doctor approved. The officers resumed questioning defendant, asking her, among other things, what she was wearing at the time of the accident. She responded that she was wearing jeans and a red jacket.

The trial court ruled that defendant was not in custody when she was interviewed in the emergency room. However, with respect to the videotaped statement, the trial court noted that defendant had been moved from the emergency room into another hospital room; that she was interviewed by different officers; that those officers—Burgner and Mall—intended to videotape a statement; that they did not mention that the interview would be videotaped or attempt to secure defendant's consent to videotape the interview; that Miranda warnings were "rattled off in a very fast and cursory manner"; that there was "a lot of ancillary noise from the machines in the hospital room beeping and other sounds going off"; that the officers prefaced the Miranda warnings by stating that they were going to conduct a "Q & A" session; that defendant did not unambiguously indicate that she understood her rights; and that, at one point, defendant attempted to stop the interview, but Burgner and Mall "didn't make any effort to leave."

The trial court found it "offensive" that the officers tried to downplay the significance of the interview by calling it a "Q & A" session, by "trying to act as calm and nonchalant and laissez faire as possible," and by trying to "act like [defendant's] pal." The trial court ruled that the "context" of the statement violated Miranda.

After the court announced its ruling, the following exchange occurred:

"MR. WEIS [State's Attorney]: * * * I think the court must make a finding of certain things, of what the actual violation of Miranda that—

THE COURT: There was no waiver.

MR. WEIS: There was no waiver, and that she was in custody?

THE COURT: Clearly she was in custody."

The trial court denied the State's motion to reconsider, and the State filed a timely notice of appeal.

In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court held that statements made in response to custodial interrogation by law enforcement officials must be suppressed unless the defendant was advised of, and waived, the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during questioning. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478-79, 86 S.Ct. at 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d at 726. The State contends that the pivotal issue here is whether defendant was in custody at the time of the videotaped interview.

When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of Miranda, we generally "accord great deference to the trial court's factual findings and will reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence." People v. Jeffers, 365 Ill.App.3d 422, 427, 302 Ill.Dec. 649, 849 N.E.2d 441 (2006). Recently, however, a divided panel of this court held that...