This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statement, where, according to defendant, said statement was made after he had invoked his right to counsel and after police authorities had refused his request to make phone call while he was in custody. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court’s denial, found that defendant’s statement was voluntary, in spite of fact that statement came 24 hours after he made request for phone call, where defendant had been informed of his rights on multiple occasions and had initially invoked said rights, but then re-initiated contact with police. Appellate Court further noted that: (1) defendant’s use of phone was not conditioned upon his cooperation with law enforcement, and that defendant was simply told to “wait” for use of phone; and (2) any statutory violation of section 103-3(a) regarding withholding of phone did not render his statement involuntary.