In People v. Buck, 361 Ill. App. 3d 923, 942-43, 838 N.E.2d 187, 297 Ill. Dec. 700 (2005), the defendant challenged the reliability and credibility of his interrogation statement before the jury. To guide the jury in assessing the reliability of his statement, the defendant tendered modified versions of Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 3.06-3.07 (4th ed. 2000) (hereinafter IPI Criminal 4th No. 3.06-3.07), based on section 103-2.1(b), which was not in effect at the time of his interrogation. Buck, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 941-42. The trial court rejected the tendered instruction. This court held the defendant was not entitled to jury instructions, which according to the defendant shared "'commonality of purpose with section [103-2.1(b)].'" Buck, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 942. The Court upheld use of the unmodified versions of IPI Criminal 4th No. 3.06-3.07 because the "essence of the refused instructions was covered" by the instructions given. Buck, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 943. The Court also noted that "recommendation 58 of the Report of the Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment, ch.9, at 133-34 (April 2002), which recommends the addition to IPI Criminal 4th No. 3.06-3.07 of language regarding the reliability of electronically recorded confessions" had not been approved. Buck, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 945. Because section 103-2.1(b) was not in effect and the recommendation to modify IPI instructions had not been adopted, the Court accepted the State's argument "that the trial court gave the jury the only instruction required by law, i.e., the unmodified version of IPI Criminal 4th No. 3.06-3.07." Buck, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 942. Buck is consistent with our holding that section 103-2.1(b) did not impose responsibility on a police agency regarding the recording of police interrogations until the statute became law.