With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". third event, however, also likely contributed to defendant’s decision to incriminate himself — the illegal seizing of his coat by the police just prior to interrogating him. Admittedly, defendant was never “confronted,” in the literal sense of the word, with the jacket, i.e., he was never directly told a witness to the murder had identified the perpetrator as wearing the same exact jacket. Nevertheless, the illegal seizure of defendant’s jacket occurred as he was being led into an interrogation room in which he would momentarily admit to shooting Merriwether, according to the testimony of the detectives. Moreover, the fact that defendant was observed wearing the jacket inside out suggests he was aware of the potentially incriminating nature of the jacket. Cf. White, 117 Ill. 2d at 225 (<HOLDING>); Turner, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 991 (“[I]f a

A: holding codefendants mere pres ence in police station absent any suggestion that the defendant believed or knew that his codefendant had implicated him in the crime could not constitute an intervening circumstance
B: holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely
C: holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave
D: holding the defendant was not under arrest when police asked him to go to the station and then offered him a ride because he did not have transportation
A.