People v. Crotty

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2009 » People v. Crotty

People v. Crotty

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-07-0194 Rel

Case Date: 09/10/2009

Preview:No. 2--07--0194 Filed: 9-10-09 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Du Page County. ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 06--CF--1736 ) JOHNATHAN D. CROTTY, ) Honorable ) Michael J. Burke, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court: Defendant, Johnathan D. Crotty, was charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance in violation of section 401(c)(2) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Act) (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2006)). On November 30, 2006, the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The State moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied that motion on January 12, 2007. The State filed a certificate of impairment and timely appealed the trial court's order, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (210 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)).1 We reverse and remand.
1

We note that this court held in People v. Marker, 382 Ill. App. 3d 464, 477 (2008), that a

motion by the State to reconsider an interlocutory order suppressing evidence would not toll the time for filing an appeal under Supreme Court Rules 604(a)(1) and 606(b) (210 Ill. 2d R. 606(b)). On May 21, 2008, on our own motion, we held this case in abeyance pending the supreme court's review of Marker. The supreme court has since reversed the holding in Marker. See People v. Marker, 233

No. 2--07--0194 On June 20, 2006, defendant was charged by complaint with one count of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2006)) for delivering more than 1 gram but less than 15 grams of cocaine on May 5, 2006, in Naperville. On August 28, 2006, defendant moved to suppress evidence, alleging that Naperville police detectives improperly interrogated him after he invoked his right to counsel. The trial court heard defendant's motion on November 30, 2006. Detective Richard Arsenault of the Naperville police department testified for the State. On May 5, 2006, around 4 p.m., Detective Arsenault was at the Naperville police department jail, where he had two people in custody as a result of a drug investigation. He and another detective met with defendant in an interview room in the jail. Detective Arsenault read defendant his Miranda rights from a preprinted form and had defendant initial next to each right if he understood it. Detective Arsenault then asked defendant to read a waiver and to sign it if he wanted to speak with the detectives. Defendant signed the waiver and initialed each right on the form. Defendant denied any involvement in the crime that Detective Arsenault was investigating. Detective Arsenault asked to look at defendant's cellular phone and defendant consented. Detective Arsenault located a phone number that he recognized on the phone, and he confronted defendant with it. Defendant said that he did not know how the number had gotten into his phone and that possibly the codefendant had stored the number in his phone. Defendant then asked to speak with an attorney before any further questioning. After defendant requested an attorney, Detective Arsenault terminated the interview and returned defendant to his cell. Detective Arsenault went to his office, which was at the other end of the building. Detective Arsenault discussed with other members of his narcotics unit whether any

Ill. 2d 158 (2009). Accordingly, jurisdiction is proper in this case. -2-

No. 2--07--0194 search warrants would be executed in relation to defendant's case. None of the officers involved were near defendant's cell after he invoked his right to counsel. Approximately 1

Download People v. Crotty.pdf