delivered the opinion of the court:
The State appeals from an order of the appellate court holding that respondent, G.O., is entitled to a jury trial and that respondent’s confession was involuntary. See 304 Ill. App. 3d 719. We vacate the appellate court’s holding that respondent is entitled to a jury trial and reverse the holding that respondent’s confession was involuntary.
BACKGROUND
The State, relying upon a theory of accountability, filed a petition in the circuit court of Cook County to adjudicate respondent delinquent for the first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9 — 1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 1998)) of Rafael Kubera. Respondent also faced related allegations of aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24— 1.2(a)(2) (West 1998)), aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12 — 4(a) (West 1998)), and aggravated battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12 — 4.2(a)(1) (West 1998)). Respondent requested a jury trial. The trial court denied respondent’s request. Respondent also sought to suppress incriminating statements that he had made. After a hearing, the trial court denied this motion.
Subsequently, the trial court adjudicated respondent delinquent on all charge's. Pursuant to section 5 — 33(1.5) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/5— 33(1.5) (West 1996) (now 705 ILCS 405/5 — 750(2) (West 1998))), the trial court declared respondent a ward of the court and ordered him committed to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, until his “21st birthday, without the possibility of parole, furlough, or non-emergency authorized absence for a period of 5 years.” See 705 ILCS 405/5 — 33(1.5) (West 1996). Respondent timely appealed.
The appellate court held that the trial court denied respondent his right to equal protection as guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions (see U.S. Const., amend. XIV; People. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2) when it denied his request for a jury trial. The court explained that the sentence to which respondent was subject was similar to the sentences imposed upon habitual and violent juvenile offenders.1 Compare 705 ILCS 405/5 — 33(1.5) (West 1996) .with 705 ILCS 405/5 — 35(1) (West 1996) (now 705 ILCS 405/5 — 815(f) (West 1998)) (requiring a habitual juvenile offender to be committed to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, “until his 21st birthday, without possibility of parole, furlough, of non-emergency authorized absence”) and 705 ILCS 405/5 — 36(f) (West 1996) (now 705 ILCS 405/5 — 820(f) (West 1998)) (requiring a violent juvenile offender to be committed to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, “until his or her 21st birthday, without possibility of parole, furlough, or non-emergency authorized absence”). The court described all three sentences as “punitive, determinate, nondiscretionary sentences of commitment to the age of 21 without hope of parole or furlough for at least five years from the date of commitment.” 304 Ill. App. 3d at 727. The court reasoned that the similar sentences rendered respondent similarly situated to habitual and violent juvenile offenders. Notwithstanding the fact that the three are similarly situated, the Juvenile Court Act treats juveniles charged with first degree murder differently than it treats juvenile offenders and violent juvenile offenders. Specifically, the Juvenile Court Act grants a jury trial to both habitual and violent juvenile offenders, but it does not grant such a right to juveniles charged with first degree murder. See 705 ILCS 405/5 — 35(d), 5 — 36(d) (West 1996). The appellate court concluded that no rational basis existed for granting a jury trial to habitual and violent juvenile offenders while denying one to juveniles charged with first degree murder. 304 Ill. App. 3d at 727-29.
The appellate court also examined the evidence that had been presented at the suppression hearing and concluded that the trial court erred in denying respondent’s motion to suppress. Subsequently, the State sought leave to appeal, both as a matter of right and as a matter of discretion (see 177 Ill. 2d R. 315; 134 Ill. 2d R. 317).2 We granted the State’s petition and ordered that the action be considered on an expedited basis. We also granted the motions of the Cook County public defender and the Children and Family Justice Center to file briefs as amici curiae.
ANALYSIS Equal Protection
We address first the State’s argument that the appellate court erred in concluding that the trial court’s refusal to grant respondent a jury trial denied him the equal protection of the laws. The basis for the appellate court’s opinion is the similar sentences imposed oil juveniles adjudicated delinquent of first degree murder and those imposed on juveniles adjudicated delinquent as habitual and violent juvenile offenders. See 304 Ill. App. 3d at 727.
The sentencing provision for juveniles charged with first degree murder is found at section 5 — 33(1.5). This section was enacted as part of Public Act 88 — 680 (Pub. Act 88 — 680, eff. January 1, 1995), commonly known as the Safe Neighborhoods Law. In People v. Cervantes, 189 Ill. 2d 80 (1999), this court held that the General Assembly violated the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. iy § 8(d)) when it enacted Public Act 88 — 680. When an act is held unconstitutional in its entirety, it is void ab initio-, the state of the law is as if the act had never been passed. People v. Tellez-Valencia, 188 Ill. 2d 523, 525 (1999); see also People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 390 (1990). Thus, respondent is no longer subject to a mandatory sentencing requirement. Instead, he is now treated similarly to all juvenile offenders except habitual and violent juvenile offenders. Because respondent is unquestionably not similarly situated to habitual and violent juvenile offenders, we have no basis upon which to conclude that the trial court’s denial of respondent’s request for a jury trial denied respondent the equal protection of the law.
Due Process
Respondent argues that, even if he is not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of equal protection, both the federal and state constitutions guarantee him such a right both as a matter of due process and as a matter of the constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial. See U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 2, 8. Both this court and the Supreme Court have previously rejected such arguments. See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 29 L. Ed. 2d 647, 91 S. Ct. 1976 (1971); People ex rel. Carey v. Chrastka, 83 Ill. 2d 67 (1980); In re Fucini, 44 Ill. 2d 305 (1970). Respondent urges us to reconsider these decisions in light of the fact that the mandatory minimum sentence required by section 5 — 33(1.5) renders the process to which respondent is subject much more punitive than rehabilitative. Here, however, respondent is no longer subject to the mandatory minimum sentence, and respondent has given us no other reason to reexamine our earlier decisions.3 Consequently, we must reject respondent’s argument.
Because the law underlying the appellate court’s judgment has now been rendered void, we must vacate the appellate court’s judgment holding that respondent was denied his equal protection rights when the trial court denied his request for a new trial.
Respondent’s Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority and the State’s Reply Brief to the Briefs of the Amici Curiae
After this court issued its opinion in Cervantes, respondent sought leave to cite Cervantes as additional authority. In section II of this motion, respondent asserts that the legislature has reenacted the mandatory sentencing provision for juveniles charged with first degree murder (see 705 ILCS 405/5 — 750(2) (West 1998)). Respondent contends that, because this provision has been reenacted, this court should, because of the “great public interest,” decide whether a juvenile charged with first degree murder is entitled to a jury trial.
Similarly, the State, in its reply brief to the briefs of the amici curiae, devotes approximately a third of its brief to discussing the effect of Cervantes. The State argues that (1) because of the reenactment of the sentencing provision, we should address whether juveniles charged with first degree murder are entitled to a jury trial; and (2) respondent is subject to the reenacted sentencing provision even though it was not effective until after the events forming the foundation of the finding of delinquency occurred. Subsequently, respondent moved to strike the State’s reply brief. We ordered that motion taken with the case.
This court’s rules governing appeals provide, “The reply brief, if any, shall be confined strictly to replying to arguments presented in the brief of the appellee ***.” (Emphasis added.) 177 Ill. 2d R. 341(g). The first third of the State’s reply brief addresses issues contained within neither respondent’s brief nor the briefs of the amici curiae, which were filed in support of the respondent’s position. Because argument I of the State’s brief violates Rule 341(g), we grant respondent’s motion in part and strike argument I of the State’s brief. In so doing, we note that if the State wished to brief these issues, it should have sought leave from this court to do so.
We turn now to respondent’s argument. Respondent concedes that he is no longer subject to the mandatory sentencing requirements. He argues, however, that this court should issue what would in effect be an advisory opinion deciding whether, under the reenacted version of the sentencing provision for juveniles found delinquent of first degree murder, juveniles are entitled to a jury trial. Aside from the question of whether respondent should have raised this issue earlier,4 we note that respondent’s argument contains no citation to any authority that would permit this court to issue such an advisory opinion. Because respondent has failed to cite any authority to support his argument, we find it waived. See 177 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(7); People v. Franklin, 167 Ill. 2d 1, 20 (1995).
Voluntariness of Respondent’s Confession Standard of Review
We turn now to whether defendant’s confession was voluntary. Before addressing the merits of this issue, we must first determine the proper standard of review. The State argues that we cannot reverse the trial court’s ruling denying defendant’s motion to suppress unless the court’s conclusion is against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court, finding that neither the facts nor the credibility of the witnesses was at issue, reviewed the trial court’s ruling de novo. See 304 Ill. App. 3d at 730. Respondent argues that, regardless of which standard of review is applied, the trial court erred in denying respondent’s motion to suppress. Nevertheless, respondent contends that de novo review is appropriate because “[o]nly the State’s witnesses presented evidence with respect to the alleged statements and the immediate surrounding circumstances.”
Traditionally, this court has held that, when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a defendant’s motion to suppress involuntary statements, the appellate court should affirm the trial court’s judgment unless the judgment was manifestly erroneous. See People v. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d 409, 447 (1996) (“this court has never departed from the ‘manifestly erroneous’ standard in reviewing the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress based upon the voluntariness of a confession”). In Oaks, however, this court reviewed the ruling de novo because the record contained both a videotape and a transcript of the interrogation. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d at 447.
After this court decided Oaks, the Supreme Court held that, when an appellate court reviews rulings on a motion to suppress involving questions of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, the reviewing court should review de novo the findings with respect to probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911, 920, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996). The Court explained that de novo review was justified for three reasons. First, “independent appellate review of these ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause is consistent with the position we have taken in past cases.” Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 697, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 919, 116 S. Ct. at 1662. Second, “the legal rules for probable cause and reasonable suspicion acquire content only through application. Independent review is therefore necessary if appellate courts are to maintain control of, and to clarify, the legal principles.” Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 697, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 919, 116 S. Ct. at 1662. Third, “de novo review tends to unify precedent and will come closer to providing law enforcement officers with a defined ‘set of rules which, in most instances, makes it possible to reach a correct determination beforehand as to whether an invasion of privacy is justified in the interest of law enforcement.’ ” Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 698, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 919, 116 S. Ct. at 1662, quoting New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 458, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768, 773, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2863 (1981). The Court cautioned, however, that findings of historical fact should be reviewed only for clear error and that reviewing courts must give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by the fact finder. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 920, 116 S. Ct. at 1663.
Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that “Ornelas requires that the ultimate question of whether a confession is voluntary is a matter of law that must be reviewed de novo.” United States v. D.F., 115 E3d 413, 419 (7th Cir. 1996). In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the same factors that the Supreme Court found dispositive in Ornelas apply equally to questions of voluntariness. First, the Supreme Court has traditionally treated the question of the voluntariness of a confession as a question of law. D.F., 115 F.3d at 418, citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302, Ill S. Ct. 1246 (1991); Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 110, 88 L. Ed. 2d 405, 411, 106 S. Ct. 445, 449 (1985); see also Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 515-16, 10 L. Ed. 2d 513, 522, 83 S. Ct. 1336, 1344 (1963). Second, the term voluntariness “is certainly given content through case-by-case adjudication, an adjudication tempered by the discipline of traditional common-law methodology. When employed as a constitutional standard of adjudication, it presents a very definite need for uniformity of meaning and consistency of application.” D.F., 115 F.3d at 417. Third, the court explained that the question of whether a confession is voluntary “ ‘turns as much on whether the techniques for extracting the statements, as applied to this suspect, are compatible with a system that presumes innocence and assures that a conviction will not be secured by inquisitorial means as on whether the defendant’s will was in fact overborne.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) D.F., 115 F.3d at 418, quoting Miller, 474 U.S. at 116, 88 L. Ed. 2d at 414-15, 106 S. Ct. at 452-53. Given this, the “unification of precedent by appellate courts is especially important because it comes closer to providing law enforcement officers with a set of rules upon which they can act with the assurance that they are not going beyond the pale of the Constitution.” D.F., 115 F.3d at 417. Because the factors used in Ornelas apply equally to questions of the voluntariness of a confession, the Seventh Circuit concluded that “Ornelas requires that the ultimate question of whether a confession is voluntary is a matter of law that must be reviewed de novo.” D.F., 115 F.3d at 419. In reaching this conclusion, the court, like the Supreme Court in Ornelas, emphasized that “the determination of the historical facts of the case are the proper domain of the trial court and that our review of its findings in that regard will be for clear error.” D.F., 115 F.3d at 419. Notably, virtually every other federal court of appeals agrees with this conclusion. See United States v. Tompkins, 130 F.3d 117, 120 n.10 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing cases from numerous federal appellate courts and noting that the question of whether a confession is voluntary “is uniformly held to be subject to de novo review”).
After reviewing Ornelas and D.F., we agree with the Seventh Circuit that the decision in Ornelas applies equally to questions of the voluntariness of a confession and that the federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court review de novo the question of the voluntariness of a confession. The question facing us is whether we should adopt the same standard.
First, we note that this court has followed Ornelas. See People v. Wardlow, 183 Ill. 2d 306, 311 (1998), rev’d on other grounds, 528 U.S. 119, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570, 120 S. Ct. 673 (2000). Thus, this court has already found persuasive the principles relied on in Ornelas. After considering this fact and reviewing the above cases, we believe that the same principles apply to our review of the voluntariness of a confession. A de novo standard of review ensures that our courts of review maintain and clarify the legal principals governing confessions. This, in turn, allows our reviewing courts to develop a uniform body of precedent that will enable police officers to determine, before attempting to obtain confession, what behavior is constitutionally permissible.
Consequently, in reviewing whether respondent’s confession was voluntary, we will accord great deference to the trial court’s factual findings, and we will reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, we will review de novo the ultimate question of whether the confession was voluntary. We caution that, for this standard of review to function as it is intended, trial courts must exercise their responsibility to make factual findings when ruling on motions to suppress. Reviewing courts should not be required to surmise what factual findings that the trial court made. Instead, the trial court should make clear any factual findings upon which it is relying. It is only through this synergy between the trial and reviewing courts that appellate courts can develop a uniform body of precedent to guide law enforcement officers in their determination of whether their actions may violate the constitution.
Evidence Relating to Respondent’s Confession
At the hearing on respondent’s motion, Detective Edward Cunningham testified that he first saw respondent at approximately 11 p.m. on the day of the shooting. At that time, respondent was under arrest and was sitting in an interview room measuring approximately 10 by 15 feet. Cunningham did not believe that respondent was handcuffed. At approximately 12:15 a.m., Cunningham called respondent’s mother and told her that respondent was at the police station “in regards to a homicide investigation” and that he would like her to come to the station. Respondent’s mother appeared reluctant to come to the station and stated that she was not sure that she could get transportation. She also told Cunningham that, if she came to the station, she “would probably kill [respondent]” and she “wouldn’t get the truth out of [respondent].”
Cunningham next contacted Youth Officer Alicia Ayala. At approximately 12:30 a.m., Cunningham and Ayala spoke with respondent. Cunningham advised respondent of his Miranda rights and then asked him what had happened that evening. Respondent stated that he had been riding in a van with some friends when they saw a person named Alfredo Nunez, also known as Weedo. Nunez joined respondent and his companions. After going to a restaurant, respondent and his companions took Nunez home. After taking this statement, Cunningham left and spoke with other investigators.
At approximately 3:30 a.m., Cunningham again spoke with respondent, this time with Youth Officer Cecil Jefferson present. Cunningham again informed respondent of his Miranda rights. Cunningham then told respondent that he did not believe that, during their first conversation, respondent had told him everything that had happened that evening. Respondent then told Cunningham that he was in a van with three other individuals. They picked up Nunez, who told them that he “wanted to get some Popes5 because they had been messing with him a couple days earlier.” Nunez told the driver to go to the Archer Park area to search for some Popes. After circling the area, they saw some Popes in the park. Nunez instructed the driver to park within a block or two of the park. Nunez also told the others in the rear of the van to hand him a gun from a hiding spot. Upon receiving the gun, Nunez stated that he was going to “pop some Popes.”
After the van was parked, respondent and Nunez exited the van and began walking toward the park. Respondent and Nunez became separated by several feet when respondent paused to urinate. As the two approached the Popes, one of the Popes, speaking toward respondent, questioned, “Who is the nig[g]er.” Respondent replied, “Maniacs,” which he explained meant Maniac Latin Disciples.
The Popes began chasing respondent, and he ran toward where Nunez was standing. As respondent neared Nunez, respondent saw Nunez shoot at the Popes. Respondent turned to look at the Popes, and he heard Nunez fire several more shots. Respondent then shouted, “Pope killers,” and he and Nunez returned to the van. They then drove to Nunez’s house, where Nunez hid the gun and respondent discarded the used shell casings in the garbage.
About the time that respondent finished relating the account, his mother arrived at the station. Cunningham took her to see respondent. Cunningham then told respondent:
“I’m going to explain everything to your mother in front of you that happened this evening and that you told me what happened. If I say anything that isn’t the truth, you stop me.”
Respondent did not stop Cunningham at anytime during his description of the evening’s occurrences.
Cunningham did not recall that respondent had been handcuffed at any of the times he saw respondent that night. Cunningham admitted, however, that he did not know for sure that respondent had not been handcuffed. Cunningham also stated that he did not remember respondent going to the bathroom, getting something to eat, or getting something to drink.
Assistant State’s Attorney Michael O’Malley testified that at approximately 3 a.m. he spoke with respondent in the presence of Ayala and Cunningham. At that time, respondent was not handcuffed. After advising respondent of his rights, O’Malley questioned respondent about what had happened that night. Respondent told him that Nunez had a gun and was going to Archer Park to shoot some Popes. The description of the shooting was consistent with Cunningham’s testimony.
Ayala testified that, when she asked Cunningham if respondent’s parents had been notified, Cunningham told her, “The parent had been notified and the parent refused to come down.” When Ayala first saw respondent at approximately 12:30 a.m., he was not handcuffed, and he had a can of soda in front of him. After the initial interview was over, respondent requested to use the bathroom and the officers allowed him to do so.
During the 3 a.m. interview, Ayala saw respondent receive a second can of soda, and she noticed that he was not handcuffed. Following this interview, respondent again asked to go to the bathroom, and he was allowed to go.
Respondent’s mother testified that when Cunningham told her that respondent was at the police station, she told him, “I am on my way. I am on public transportation, but I am on my way.” She admitted that she said that she was going to kill respondent, but she explained that this was just an expression of her unhappiness that respondent was in Chicago when he was not supposed to be there. She denied that she said that she could not get the truth from him. During cross-examination, respondent’s mother testified that respondent is a smart child who was doing “very well” in school.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that respondent was in custody for approximately two hours before he was questioned, that Cunningham had notified respondent’s mother before he began questioning respondent, and that Cunningham informed respondent of his Miranda rights before questioning began. The court further found that the questioning had occurred in the presence of a youth officer and that respondent, who is a “very intelligent man,” had “no problem” understanding his Miranda rights. The court emphasized that, between the times that respondent was questioned, he had ample time in which to contemplate what he was saying and to ask questions about his rights or anything else that was happening. Nevertheless, respondent made no such inquiries. Respondent was never physically or mentally abused, was not handcuffed, never requested an attorney, was allowed to use the bathroom, and was provided with soda. The court stated that “no coercive environment was ever attached to the minor respondent.” The court then denied respondent’s motion.
Governing Law
In determining whether a confession was voluntary, we must consider the totality of the circumstances. People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill. 2d 484, 500 (1996). Factors to consider include the respondent’s age, intelligence, background, experience, mental capacity, education, and physical condition at the time of questioning; the legality and duration of the detention; the duration of the questioning; and any physical or mental abuse by police, including the existence of threats or promises. Gilliam, 172 Ill. 2d at 500-01. Significantly, no single factor is dispositive. Gilliam, 172 Ill. 2d at 500. The test of voluntariness is whether the respondent “made the statement freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion or inducement of any sort, or whether the [respondent’s] will was overcome at the time he or she confessed.” Gilliam, 172 Ill. 2d at 500.
Additionally, we have recognized that the taking of a juvenile’s confession is “a sensitive concern.” People v. Prude, 66 Ill. 2d 470, 476 (1977). Because of this, the “greatest care” must be taken to assure that the confession was not coerced or suggested and that “ ‘it was not the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair.’ ” People v. Simmons, 60 Ill. 2d 173, 180 (1975), quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 55, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 561, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 1458 (1967); see also Prude, 66 Ill. 2d at 476. Because of this concern, the appellate court has also recognized an additional factor that is not present in cases involving adults. This factor, commonly known as the “concerned adult” factor, considers whether the juvenile, either before or during the interrogation, had an opportunity to consult with an adult interested in his welfare. See In re L.L., 295 Ill. App. 3d 594, 600-01 (1998); In re S.D.S., 103 Ill. App. 3d 1008, 1012 (1982). Other facets to this factor include whether the police prevented the juvenile from conferring with a concerned adult and whether the police frustrated the parents’ attempt to confer with the juvenile. L.L., 295 Ill. App. 3d at 601; In re 294 Ill. App. 3d 227, 235 (1998). The State devotes several pages of its brief to arguing that this factor is based on erroneous statutory interpretation and that the appellate court has erred by turning this factor into a per se rule requiring the suppression of a juvenile’s confession if he is denied the ability to confer with a concerned adult either before or during his interrogation. Nevertheless, during oral argument, the State conceded that whether a juvenile is able to confer with a parent or other concerned adult can be a relevant factor to consider when determining whether a juvenile’s confession is voluntary.
We agree with the State that a juvenile’s confession should not be suppressed simply because he was denied the opportunity to confer with a parent or other concerned adult before or during the interrogation. Nevertheless, we believe that this is a factor that may be relevant in determining whether a juvenile’s confession was voluntary. This is particularly true in situations in which the juvenile has demonstrated trouble understanding the interrogation process, he asks to speak with his parents or another “concerned adult,” or the police prevent the juvenile’s parents from speaking with him. While not dis-positive, this is one of many factors to be examined when determining whether a juvenile’s confession was voluntary.
Turning to the facts of this case, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances indicates that respondent’s confession was voluntary. Weighing against admission are respondent’s young age and the fact that he has had no previous contact or experience with the justice system. Although respondent was not provided with an opportunity to confer with a concerned adult, the testimony revealed that respondent never requested to do so, and the police never frustrated any attempt by respondent’s mother to confer with him. Significantly, Cunningham phoned respondent’s mother before he questioned respondent. Although he did not tell respondent’s mother that respondent was under arrest, Cunningham explained that, when he spoke with her, he did not know that respondent was involved in the shooting.
The other factors weigh in favor of admission. First, respondent’s detention was valid. Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that the authorities repeatedly informed respondent of his Miranda rights and that respondent understood those rights.6 Respondent’s mother testified that he was intelligent and did very well in school. Although respondent was in the police station for several hours, he was questioned for only a short period of time on only three or four occasions. Additionally, the trial court found that respondent was not handcuffed and that he was provided soda and access to the bathroom upon request. Respondent concedes that no physical coercion occurred, and the testimony revealed no evidence of any threats or promises. Thus, while we believe that the taking of a juvenile’s confession is a sensitive concern and that care must be taken to ensure that the confession is voluntary, we believe that the totality of the circumstances indicates that respondent’s confession was the result of his own decision and not the result of compulsion or his will being overborne.
Amicus curiae Cook County public defender urges us to adopt a per se rule that minors tried as adults must consult with counsel before waiving their Miranda rights. Because the cause before us involves only a minor tried as a juvenile and not a minor tried as an adult, we decline to address this argument.
Amicus curiae Children and Family Justice Center argues that this court should (1) create a per se rule requiring that minors must have an opportunity to consult with a parent, guardian, or attorney before the police can interrogate the minor; and (2) require that all interrogations of minors be videotaped. With respect to the first issue, we have already determined that the ability of a juvenile to consult with a concerned adult is one of many factors that courts must consider when determining whether a confession is voluntary. However, we see no basis in the law to conclude that this single factor should be dispositive.
With respect to the videotaping of confessions, we believe that this is a policy question that is best left to the General Assembly and individual police departments. While we have no doubt that the presence of a videotape would assist a court in determining whether a confession is voluntary (see, e.g., Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d at 447-48), the constitution does not require that a confession be videotaped to be admissible at trial.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Respondent contends that, without his confession, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding of delinquency. Respondent does not argue that the evidence is insufficient if his confession is considered. Because we have determined that the trial court properly admitted defendant’s confession, we need not address this issue.
CONCLUSION
Because respondent is not subject to a mandatory determinate sentence, we must vacate the appellate court’s holding that the trial court violated respondent’s equal protection rights by denying his request for a jury trial. Moreover, because the trial court believed that it had to impose a mandatory determinate sentence, we must vacate the disposition and remand this cause to the trial court so that it may impose a disposition consistent with the applicable law.
Additionally, we reverse the appellate court’s judgment that respondent’s confession was involuntary and affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.
Appellate court judgment vacated in part and reversed in part; circuit court judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part; cause remanded.
A. habitual juvenile offender is a juvenile who (1) has twice been adjudged delinquent of acts which, had the juvenile been prosecuted as an adult, would have been felonies; and (2) is then adjudged delinquent of one of several enumerated offenses. See 705 ILCS 405/5 — 35(a) (West 1996). A violent juvenile offender is a juvenile who is adjudicated delinquent a second time for an offense which, had the juvenile been prosecuted as an adult, would have been a Class 2 felony or greater, and which involved the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual or which includes as an element the possession or use of a firearm. 705 ILCS 405/5 — 36(a) (West 1996). Both statutes also contain certain time requirements that must be satisfied. See 705 ILCS 405/5— 35(a), 5 — 36(a) (West 1996).
2While its petition for leave to appeal was pending, the State sought leave to cite additional authority. This court ordered the motion taken with the case. Because we granted the State’s petition for leave to appeal and because the State cited the authority in its brief, that motion has been rendered moot.
Contrary to Justice Heiple’s assertions (see 191 Ill. 2d at 62), we do not hold that a due process argument is foreclosed by Fucini. Instead, we hold that, in the absence of the mandatory sentencing provision, respondent does not ask this court to reconsider Fucini. The argument considered by Justice Heiple is not before this court and we express no opinion upon its merits.
We note that, when this case was being briefed, two districts of the appellate court had held that Public Act 88 — 680 violated the single subject clause. See People v. Williams, 302 Ill. App. 3d 975 (1999); People v. Dainty, 299 Ill. App. 3d 235 (1998). Further, the question was pending before this court in Cervantes.
Rival gang members.
We note that respondent asserts that he did not understand his Miranda rights. The trial court specifically found that respondent understood those rights, and, after reviewing the record, we are unable to conclude that this finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence.