{ "id": 4306320, "name": "In re TYLER G., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tyler G., Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Tyler G.", "decision_date": "2010-03-09", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201409\u20140353", "first_page": "1089", "last_page": "1094", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "407 Ill. App. 3d 1089" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "810 N.E.2d 472", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482" }, { "page": "485", "parenthetical": "modifying the reasonable-person standard to account for suspect's mental retardation" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 Ill. 2d 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5461664 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "506" }, { "page": "512" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/209/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "429 U.S. 492", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 7010 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495" }, { "page": "719" }, { "page": "714" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/429/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "536 N.E.2d 909", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "913" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 Ill. App. 3d 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8498062 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/181/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "898 N.E.2d 704", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "709" }, { "page": "709" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "385 Ill. App. 3d 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4279353 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "207" }, { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/385/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "860 N.E.2d 178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 2d 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3604853 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/223/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "886 N.E.2d 986", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "994" }, { "page": "994-95" }, { "page": "995" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 Ill. 2d 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5706257 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "149" }, { "page": "150" }, { "page": "150" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/228/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "858 N.E.2d 15", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 2d 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3604994 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/223/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 9, "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479" }, { "page": "726-27" }, { "page": "1630" }, { "page": "478-79" }, { "page": "726" }, { "page": "1630" }, { "page": "444" }, { "page": "706" }, { "page": "1612" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 537, "char_count": 9763, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14501057783677734 }, "sha256": "914ced4d70c844620e9c2f12ba725754e81e54c00e0d8ea41944c738bf7cbf36", "simhash": "1:8a85357c76450bd3", "word_count": 1549 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:37:05.247121+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re TYLER G., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tyler G., Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a March 2009 bench trial, the trial court found respondent, Tyler G. (born August 30, 1996), guilty of residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19\u20143(a) (West 2008)), and the court adjudicated him delinquent. In April 2009, the court sentenced respondent to 60 months\u2019 probation.\nRespondent appeals, arguing the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements he made to the police that he alleges were made during a custodial interrogation and without the benefit of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 726-27, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1630 (1966)). We affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn September 2008, Officer Lester Stevens, the deputy chief of police for the City of Chenoa, Illinois, questioned respondent, a 13-year-old minor, about his involvement in a burglary. Stevens did not read respondent a Miranda warning prior to the start of questioning. The questioning took place at respondent\u2019s residence, where he lived with his grandmother. Respondent has lived with her on a permanent basis since he was 18 months old. Stevens interviewed respondent, in the presence of his grandmother, for approximately 30 minutes in the kitchen of the residence.\nAccording to Officer Stevens\u2019 testimony, respondent initially indicated that he had not been involved in the burglary. However, after a few minutes he admitted entering the victims\u2019 residence and taking some jewelry and a bicycle. Stevens did not arrest respondent at that time. Instead, respondent was allowed to remain home with his grandmother. Stevens told respondent and his grandmother that he would call them later to arrange a meeting at the police station.\nApproximately 1\u00bd hours later, Officer Stevens called and requested respondent\u2019s grandmother bring him to the police station, which she did. According to respondent\u2019s grandmother\u2019s testimony, at no time was respondent handcuffed or transported in a police vehicle. While respondent was fingerprinted and photographed at the police station, Stevens testified respondent was not questioned further about the offense. Following processing, respondent was released to the custody of his grandmother and allowed to return home. Stevens told them they would be contacted later regarding possible charges. Respondent and several other minors were later charged with residential burglary.\nIn November 2008, respondent filed a motion to suppress his confession, alleging that he should have been given a Miranda warning prior to the interview.\nFollowing a January 2009 hearing, the trial court denied respondent\u2019s motion to suppress on the basis that no custodial interrogation had taken place, and therefore no Miranda warning was necessary.\nIn March 2009, the trial court found respondent guilty of residential burglary and sentenced him as stated.\nIn May 2009, respondent filed a motion for a new trial and finding of not guilty, which the trial court denied.\nThis appeal followed. We affirm.\nII. ANALYSIS\nOn appeal, respondent argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements he made to the police. Specifically, respondent contends his statements should have been suppressed because he had been subject to custodial interrogation without being given his Miranda warnings.\nThe State argues the trial court\u2019s decision to deny respondent\u2019s motion was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, the State contends no violation of respondent\u2019s rights occurred because he was not \u201cin custody\u201d for Miranda purposes when he was interviewed by police at his residence.\nA. Standard of Review\nIn reviewing a motion to suppress on appeal, we are presented with mixed questions of law and fact. People v. McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d 109, 148, 858 N.E.2d 15, 39 (2006). A trial court\u2019s assessment of witness credibility and factual determinations will be reversed only if manifestly erroneous. People v. Slater, 228 Ill. 2d 137, 149, 886 N.E.2d 986, 994 (2008). The ultimate determination of whether the evidence is suppressed, however, is entitled to de novo review. People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 197, 860 N.E.2d 178, 192 (2006).\nB. Custodial Interrogation\n1. The Definition of Custodial Interrogation\nRespondent argues his statements should be suppressed because the police officer did not give him the required Miranda warnings. In Miranda, the Supreme Court held the following:\n\u201c[W]hen an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. *** He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney!!,] one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.\u201d Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478-79, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 726, 86 S. Ct. at 1630.\nHowever, Miranda warnings apply only to custodial interrogations. People v. Griffin, 385 Ill. App. 3d 202, 207, 898 N.E.2d 704, 709 (2008). In Miranda, the Supreme Court defined custodial interrogation as \u201cquestioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.\u201d Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 706, 86 S. Ct. at 1612. Accordingly, \u201c \u2018 \u201cMiranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person\u2019s freedom as to render him \u2018in custody.\u2019 \u201d \u2019 \u201d Griffin, 385 Ill. App. 3d at 207, 898 N.E.2d at 709, quoting People v. Hetzel, 181 Ill. App. 3d 85, 92, 536 N.E.2d 909, 913 (1989), quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714, 719, 97 S. Ct. 711, 714 (1977).\n2. Factors in Determining Whether an Interrogation Is Custodial\nIn determining whether a suspect is \u201cin custody\u201d for Miranda purposes, we look at (1) the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and (2) given those circumstances, whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interview and leave. Slater, 228 Ill. 2d at 150, 886 N.E.2d at 994-95. \u201cWith respect to the latter inquiry, the accepted test is what a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he or she been in the defendant\u2019s shoes.\u201d People v. Braggs, 209 Ill. 2d 492, 506, 810 N.E.2d 472, 482 (2003).\nThe supreme court has found the following factors relevant in determining whether a statement was made in a custodial setting:\n\u201c(1) the location, time, length, mood, and mode of questioning; (2) the number of police officers present during the interrogation; (3) the presence or absence of family and friends of the individual; (4) any indicia of formal arrest procedure, such as the show of weapons or force, physical restraint, booking[,] or fingerprinting; (5) the manner by which the individual arrived at the place of questioning; and (6) the age, intelligence, and mental makeup of the accused.\u201d Slater, 228 Ill. 2d at 150, 886 N.E.2d at 995.\n3. Respondent Was Not \u201cIn Custody\u201d\nIn this case, the State presented sufficient evidence to show respondent was not \u201cin custody\u201d for Miranda purposes when he made the statements at issue. Uncontradicted testimony established respondent was questioned in the kitchen at his residence, not at the police station. Further, respondent was not transported to the place of questioning by the police. Instead, Officer Stevens arrived at respondent\u2019s residence, knocked on the door, and asked respondent\u2019s grandmother if he could ask respondent some questions. The questioning was of limited duration, i.e., approximately 30 minutes, and only one police officer was present.\nWhile respondent was 13 years old, his grandmother, who is also his primary caretaker, was present during the questioning. Her presence served to protect respondent from any potential coercion by the police officer. Moreover, respondent presented no evidence to suggest the questioning was coercive or that he possessed a diminished mental capacity. See Braggs, 209 Ill. 2d at 512, 810 N.E.2d at 485 (modifying the reasonable-person standard to account for suspect\u2019s mental retardation).\nIn addition, the police never handcuffed or otherwise physically restrained respondent. No formal booking procedure took place immediately before or after the questioning. In fact, it was not until approximately IV2 hours later that Officer Stevens called and requested respondent\u2019s grandmother bring him to the police station, which she did. According to Stevens\u2019 testimony, no additional interrogation took place at the police station. Instead, the police booked, fingerprinted, and released respondent to the custody of his grandmother, who took him home.\nBased on the circumstances in this case, a reasonable person in respondent\u2019s situation would not have felt he was in police custody during the questioning that took place at his residence. As a result, no Miranda warning was necessary. Accordingly, we find the trial court\u2019s order denying respondent\u2019s motion to suppress was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nKNECHT and STEIGMANN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Jack C. Vieley, of Bloomington, for appellant.", "William A. Yoder, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Thomas R. Dodegge, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re TYLER G., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tyler G., Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201409\u20140353\nOpinion filed March 9, 2010.\nJack C. Vieley, of Bloomington, for appellant.\nWilliam A. Yoder, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Thomas R. Dodegge, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1089-01", "first_page_order": 1105, "last_page_order": 1110 }