In certain circumstances, telling a suspect that his family member will be charged with a crime will render a subsequent confession by the suspect inadmissible. In this case, the officer truthfully told the defendant that his wife was also a suspect in the drug investigation. No promise was made to the wife would, or would not, be arrested depending on what the suspects. Thus, there was no hope of benefit or threat of injury. In addition, the wife was actually informant for the police and the statement by the police was made in part, to protect her confidential status. Smith v. State, 291 Ga. App. 535 662 S.E.2d 305 (2008). In deciding whether a hope of benefit tainted a confession, the exclusionary rule only applies if the hope of benefit actually induces the defendant’s statement. There must be a causal connection between the promise and the resulting statement. State v. Munoz, 324 Ga. App. 386, 749 S.E.2d 48 2013. A law enforcement officers’ statement he will keep the suspect statement a secret; and the statement that the law enforcement officer will bring the defendant home after he makes a statement, do not qualify as a type of hope of benefit that will result in the suppression of a confession. Neither promise involves a benefit relating to the ultimate disposition of the case. Sparrow v. State, 324 Ga. App. 163 2013. If you are arrested please contact the law firm of Howard and Arca.

Tweet