Motion to suppress evidence; “In custody”; People v Barritt; Voluntariness of statements; Warrantless seizure of a phone; Probable cause; “Evidence of wrongdoing”; Exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement; People v Blasius; Whether a search warrant affidavit was defective; Whether references to another arrest & to the “Violent Crime Impact Team” should be excluded at trial

The court held that defendant was not “in custody” when she made statements to the police, and while “under appropriate circumstances, a police promise of confidentiality could undermine an interviewee’s understanding of his or her rights such that any statements made must be deemed involuntary[,]” the circumstances here did not merit excluding her statements. It also held that the police had probable cause to seize her phone when they did, and that a sufficient and valid affidavit supported the search warrant for the phone. Lastly, it found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her request to exclude references to a boyfriend’s arrest and to the “Violent Crime Impact Team.” Thus, it affirmed the denial of her motions to suppress or exclude evidence. First, under “the totality of the circumstances, the fact that defendant was questioned in a police station is not sufficient, by itself, to establish that she was ‘in custody.’” It found nothing in the interview suggesting “other indications that defendant was ‘in custody.’” In addition, it did not find any egregious police misconduct or that her statements were involuntary. It agreed “the police cannot simultaneously warn an interviewee that his or her statements will be used as evidence in court and promise that nothing the interviewee says will leave the room.” But context is important. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court could not find that the detective’s (L) “promise of confidentiality actually undermined defendant’s ability to understand and assert her rights.” It next concluded that by the time the police seized her “phone, they unambiguously had probable cause to do so.” The change in her demeanor when her affairs were mentioned, her refusal to answer L’s “questions about whether any of her boyfriends might have killed” her husband, and her refusal to name her boyfriend allowed the police to rightly suspect she “was not being honest with them, that there was more than a mere possibility that one of [her] boyfriends was involved in the murder, and that the phone would contain evidence from which” he could be identified. The court also agreed with the trial court that exigent circumstances allowed the police to seize it without a warrant. An error in the affidavit for a warrant to search it did not affect whether probable cause was shown, and the court held that the warrant was properly issued.