NO. 5-00-0143

_____________________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Andre D. Fuller (defendant) was arrested on December 16, 1996, on the charge ofretail theft over $150 from the Famous-Barr store in Fairview Heights, Illinois. Ondefendant's motion, the trial court suppressed statements defendant made to store securitystaff. The State appeals, upon a certificate of impairment, pursuant to Illinois SupremeCourt Rule 604(a)(1) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)). We reverse and remand.

On December 14, 1996, a Famous-Barr loss-prevention agent, Claude Karraker,allegedly observed defendant, an employee of the store, under-ringing merchandise for twocustomers. Karraker followed the customers out of the store, brought them back in to thesecurity office, and called the loss-prevention manager, Allen Kehrer. Kehrer arrived andasked defendant to accompany him to the executive office.

Kehrer testified that he did not discuss this matter with the police prior to speakingwith defendant, that the police did not call him during the questioning of defendant, and thatthey did not direct him to take defendant's statement. Kehrer testified that defendantcooperated and told Kehrer that he knew the two customers and their children and did under-ring their purchase. Kehrer testified that interviewing defendant and taking his writtenstatement took approximately 25 minutes. After the statement was taken, defendant wastaken to the security room. Kehrer then telephoned the regional manager, Dale Lambert,who made the decision to call the police and to file charges against defendant.

Generally, the review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress involvesquestions of witness credibility and determinations of fact. Such cases are reversed onlywhere manifest error is shown. People v. Wright, 183 Ill. 2d 16, 21, 697 N.E.2d 693, 695(1998). This case, however, involves a determination of a question of law, and de novoreview is appropriate. See Wright, 183 Ill. 2d at 21, 697 N.E.2d at 695.

Defendant posited two theories for suppressing the statements he made to storepersonnel. First, defendant claims that store security staff acted as agents of the local policeand, therefore, Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694,86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966)) should have been given prior to questioning. The trial court rejectedthis theory and found that the employees were not agents of the local police department. Weagree with the trial court on this point. The evidence demonstrates that the Famous-Barremployees were not acting as agents of the police in this case.

Defendant's second theory is that Miranda warnings should have been given becausethe custodial interrogation was conducted pursuant to section 16A-5 of the Criminal Codeof 1961 (720 ILCS 5/16A-5 (West 1998)). That statute provides in pertinent part:

"