No. 3--96--0154
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
A.D., 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) for the 13th Judicial Circuit
) Bureau County, Illinois
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) No. 95--TR--5155, 95--TR--5156
v. ) 95--TR--5157
)
STEVEN L. PIERCE, ) Honorable
) James J. Wimbiscus,
Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE McCUSKEY delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________________________
The defendant, Steven L. Pierce, was arrested on charges of
driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2)
(West 1994)), driving while license suspended (625 ILCS 5/6--303(a)
(West 1994)) and failure to use lights when required (625 ILCS
5/12--201(b) (West 1994)). The trial court granted the defendant's
motion to suppress a statement which he made after he was put in
custody but prior to the police informing him of his Miranda
rights. The State appeals. Following our careful review of the
record, we affirm.
At approximately 4 a.m. on October 29, 1995, a Bureau County
deputy sheriff on patrol in Seatonville observed a motorcycle
coasting down a hill on Route 6 with no headlights on. The
defendant pulled the motorcycle into a private drive and alighted
from the vehicle. The officer approached the defendant and asked
to see his driver's license and motorcycle registration. Upon
observing indications that the defendant was intoxicated, the
officer placed the defendant under arrest. The defendant became
belligerent and uncooperative, and the officer handcuffed him and
placed him in the squad car. The defendant was not given the
Miranda warnings at that time.
After placing the defendant in the squad car, the officer
prepared to impound the motorcycle. The defendant said he did not
want the vehicle to be impounded. The officer told the defendant
he would not impound the motorcycle if it was properly registered
and insured. The officer proceeded to question the defendant
concerning whether the motorcycle: (1) belonged to the defendant;
(2) was registered to the defendant; (3) was insured; (4) had valid
license plates; and (5) should be towed. In response to these
questions, the defendant said he drove the motorcycle to
Seatonville because a person named "Frog" was interested in
purchasing the motorcycle.
Prior to his trial, the defendant moved to suppress his
statement that he had driven the motorcycle to Seatonville. He
claimed the statement was involuntary because it was made during a
custodial interrogation and prior to the Miranda warnings. The
State maintained that the statement was voluntary and not given in
response to any interrogation of the defendant. The trial court
ruled that while the officer did not ask the defendant if he had
been driving the motorcycle, the officer did ask other questions
which might have elicited incriminating evidence. As a
consequence, the court found the defendant was entitled to the
Miranda warnings prior to interrogation. Because the defendant had
not received those warnings, the court suppressed the defendant's
statement that he drove the motorcycle to Seatonville.
On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred in
suppressing the defendant's statement. We disagree.
Statements obtained from a person as a result of a custodial
interrogation are admissible at trial only if, prior to the
interrogation, the person is warned of his right to remain silent,
that any statement he makes may be used against him, that he has
the right to have an attorney present and that if he cannot afford
an attorney, one will be appointed for him. See Miranda v. Arizo-
na, 384 U.S. 436, 469, 471, 476, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 720, 722, 725,
86 S. Ct. 1602, 1625, 1626, 1629 (1966). An interrogation includes
any words or actions by police that are reasonably likely to evoke
an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291,
301, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297, 308, 100 S. Ct. 1682, 1689 (1980). The
trial court's decision to suppress statements based on the lack of
Miranda warnings will be overturned only if the ruling is against
the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Jordan, 90 Ill.
App. 3d 489, 494, 413 N.E.2d 195, 198 (1980).
In the instant case, both the State and the defendant agree
that the defendant was in custody at the time he made the
suppressed statement. The issue is whether the conversation
between the arresting officer and the defendant was an
interrogation. From our review of the record, we find that the
police officer's questions were reasonably likely to evoke an
incriminating response. Depending on the defendant's answers
during the interrogation, the officer could have learned the
motorcycle was stolen, improperly registered, not properly insured,
or that the license plates were not valid. Any incriminating
responses could have led to the filing of charges against the
defendant. Because we determine that the questions could have
induced the defendant to incriminate himself, the officer was
required to warn the defendant pursuant to Miranda before
questioning him. In this case, the officer failed to so warn the
defendant. Accordingly, the defendant's statement was properly
suppressed by the trial court.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of
Bureau County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
MICHELA, J., concurs.