Recording from squad car was admissible even when officer was out of car

March 14, 2014

If you are a suspect in a crime, it is crucial you avoid speaking to law enforcement officers until your attorney is present to advise you. While many people are aware of this general rule, a suspect should also be cautious about speaking even if the officer has left you in a squad car and apparently stepped away.

The Illinois Appellate Court case of People v. Burk provides a cautionary tale, where a suspect spoke too freely while being held in a squad car.

A conversation . . . in the back of a squad car

A state trooper pulled over a car, when he was advised via radio that the car had been involved in a recent drug deal in Chicago. The trooper allegedly smelled burning cannabis coming from the car and requested a K-9 unit to examine the vehicle. The dog reacted to the car, so the trooper placed all three occupants in his squad car. The driver asked to speak with the trooper privately and confessed that two packets of heroin were in the side door.

During this time, the other two occupants were seated in the squad car which was equipped with cameras capable of recording audio and video. Allegedly, anyone sitting in the car could see the camera, although it looked the same whether it was operating or not.

When the trooper reviewed the recording the next day, he heard the defendant telling the other passenger that he had successfully hidden drugs under the driver's seat. When the trooper later rechecked the car, more heroin was discovered in that location and drug charges were brought against the defendant.

The defendant attempted to suppress the evidence found as a result of the recording, arguing it was in violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act.

Was the defendant "in the presence" of the trooper?

Under that law, there is an exception for recordings made by a person while in the presence of a uniformed peace officer. However, the defendant alleged that the trooper was outside of the car and not "present" during the recording. The law provided that any evidence obtained in violation of the eavesdropping law would be inadmissible in a criminal trial.

The Illinois Appellate Court noted that there was no question that the defendant's statement was recorded while he sat in a police vehicle and that the trooper was a uniformed peace officer. The question was whether the defendant was "in the presence of" the trooper at the time of the recording.

The appellate court held that "in the presence" is commonly defined as in the vicinity of or in the area immediately near a person. Although the trooper was in and out of the squad car several times, he was never more than 10 or 15 feet away from it. Being "in the presence" of the trooper did not mean that the trooper had to be inside the squad car.

Therefore, the exception to the eavesdropping law applied, and the evidence from the recording related to the drug possession would not be suppressed.

Having an attorney present

While being represented by an attorney during questioning is always a good idea, it can be especially important in drug cases where evidence may hinge around searches and the evidence that allegedly led to the search. Seek representation from an attorney who can determine if your constitutional rights were violated, while zealously defending your freedom.

Article provided by Borsberry Law Offices, P.C.
Visit us at www.borsberrylaw.com