CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS FOR THE COUNTY OF COLUMBIA

The People of the State of Illinois, )

Plaintiff, ) Case No. CF14-0951

v. ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS

) OPINION

Robert E. Martin )

Defendant. )

________________________________________________________________________

In the above-entitled matter, the court has taken the Defendant’s Motion under advisement. The court will now issue it’s ruling on the Motion and states its reasoning as follows:

Confession

Fact. The arresting officer did not read the Miranda rights to the defendant before confession. The officer was, however, supposed to inform the defendant of his rights to a lawyer, silence, and the option of getting a state counsel before hearing the confession of the defendant. The officer tried to trick the defendant into confessing after reading him the Miranda rights so that it could be taken as legal evidence. The arresting officer’s conduct in handling the confession makes the confession inadmissible as evidence. The defendant was justified in refusing to confess after being read his rights because the officer tried to force a confession out of him.(Makdisi & Makdisi, 2009). 

Issue. Does the law recognize a confession that is made before the defendant is informed about his rights?

Holding. The Fifth Amendment law was violated during the interrogation as the defendant was not informed about his rights to silence and to a lawyer and so this evidence may not be used before the court.

Rationale. The reason for concluding that the interrogation was not correctly done is that the defendant was not aware of his rights. At least the arresting officer is not on record informing the client of his rights. Therefore, the confession has to be supported by other investigations for the ruling to be conclusive and fair. The defendant was not treated in accordance to the law and the Fifth Amendment rights as per the requirements of the law. The interrogation guidelines here give the defendant the right to be informed their rights any time they are arrested and the officer is not at liberty to waive those rights without the defendant knowing they exist in the first place. The interrogation was not done correctly because the defendant was not aware of his rights on arrest. The dispute is on whether the defendant was offered fair trial and interrogation by the crime investigation unit. The interrogation without the defendant being made aware of his rights was not done right and the defendant may have confessed to something under duress (Fitzsimmons).

Gun Evidence

Facts. The defendant being in possession of a fire arm that has no serial number commits a class 3 felony and class 2 felony for having the serial number erased. The time frame of the act was within six years which means the court will charge and convict the defendant for class 2 felony. The arresting officer was supposed to inform the defendant of his rights on arrest. Because he failed to do so, the arrest is unlawful and the stop is ultimately unlawful. The defendant is supposed to be compensated for the wrongful arrest and interrogation procedures (Kelley).

Issue. Would it be right to admit the gun evidence given that the search was unlawful? 

Holding. No. Since the search was unlawful, the gun evidence may not be used against the defendant. 

Rationale. The crime rates in Columbia make it necessary for the police to be vigilant. On the other hand, the police should not treat everybody as a suspect. The officer is at no point allowed to forget that each citizen has rights regardless of their crimes. However, the defendant will be subject to investigation on illegal gun possession. Based on the arrest procedure, the court may not accept the gun evidence as the defendant was not searched consensually. There are many factors to consider when passing judgment in such a landmark case. The defendant owned a gun and justified it by letting the officer know that his life was being threatened by another individual. The officer has to investigate this issue further. The judgment is hereby going to require that the gun evidence not be accepted before the court since the search was not conducted legally.

References

Fitzsimmons, M. M. Pre-Trial Motions. 

Kelley, C. Pre-Trial Motions. 

Makdisi, J., & Makdisi, M. (2009). How to Write a case brief for law school: Excerpt reporoduced from introduction to the study of Law Caes and Materials. Retrieved May 13, 2017, from LexisNexis: www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/how-to-brief-a-case.page