People v. Burk

Court properly denied motion to suppress, as facts in their totality show consensual police-citizen encounter in which reasonable person in Defendant's shoes would have believed that he was free to discontinue encounter and proceed on his way. Officer exited squad car and asked Defendant what he was up to and why he had been by bushes and trees late at night, but officer did not show authority or coercion. Thus, no seizure occurred. Defendant's statement was recorded while he was in police vehicle alone. Under Section 14-3(h-5) of Eavesdropping Act, "in the presence" means in vicinity of or immediately near a uniformed officer, not necessarily inside the squad car during recording. Thus, statement was exempt from provisions of Eavesdropping Act and evidence obtained as a result of statement was not rendered inadmissible. (SCHOSTOK and SPENCE, concurring.)