House Bill 525 Summary and Analysis1
Origins of House Bill 525
House Bill 525 ("HB 525") was introduced by Representative Tim Bearden on February 22nd of the Georgia 2007 General Assembly Legislative Session. HB 525 was assigned to the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee. This bill did not pass the House during the 2007 legislative session, but may still be acted on during the 2008 legislative session.
Legislative Purpose
This bill proposes to amend Title 17 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("O.C.G.A.") by adding a new Chapter, 19, requiring the electronic recordation of all juvenile custodial interrogations. The bill also provides for certain exceptions where the electronic recordation of interrogations is not required. In addition to the recordation requirements, the bill provides for the preservation of electronic recordings of custodial statements and for the training of law enforcement officers in electronic recording methods.
Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Changes
HB 525 would deem confessions made by an "accused" who is less than 17 years old inadmissible as evidence unless electronically recorded in the presence of the child's parents, legal guardian, or attorney. There is currently no law in the O.C.G.A. that addresses the electronic recordation of custodial interrogations or that is in conflict with the provisions in HB 525. This bill proposes to amend O.C.G.A. Title17 by adding a new Chapter 19 and by adding to Title 35, Chapter 1. Specifically, HB 525 will change the O.C.G.A. in the following ways:
- Requiring the
electronic recordation of all custodial interrogations of an accused
HB 525 states that recordings shall be made to audiotape, videotape, or digital media and shall include the entire custodial interrogation including the accused being advised of Miranda warnings. The recording must also be made available to the accused ten days prior to any court proceeding to be admissible as evidence.
Exceptions to the inadmissibility of custodial interrogations which are not electronically recorded include: interrogations conducted in locations other than a place of detention where electronic recording equipment is not available; when the accused refuses to be electronically recorded; in cases of equipment failure; or spontaneous statements, such as those made during the processing or booking of the accused.
- Requiring the
presence of a parent, guardian, or attorney during the custodial
interrogation
The custodial interrogation will be inadmissible as evidence if the accused's parent, legal guardian, or attorney is not present at the time of the interrogation.
In the case of exigent circumstances, such as the accused being a suspect in a serious violent felony, another adult designated by either the accused, the accused's parent, legal guardian, or a child advocate must be present during the custodial interrogation.
- Requiring the
preservation of electronic recordings of custodial statements
HB 525 states that "the state shall not destroy or alter" the recordings until either a conviction "becomes final and all direct and habeas corpus appeals are exhausted; or the prosecution of the offense is barred by law".
- Requiring the
training of law enforcement officers in methods of electronic
recordation
HB 525 will add a new Code section, O.C.G.A. § 35-1-15, which states that the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council and the Georgia Public Safety Training Center "shall establish guidelines and procedures for the incorporation of training materials and information in methods for electronically recording a suspect's statement."
Benefits of HB 525
Electronic recording of custodial interrogations benefits both the accused and law enforcement officials. Having an electronic record of interrogations protects against forced or false confessions from the accused, while recording a true confession provides strong evidence in helping to convict the guilty.2 This practice makes it more likely that cases and investigations will not be closed due to forced or unreliable confessions, which allows police to apprehend and prosecute the true perpetrator and benefit the community.3
Possible Drawbacks of HB 525
Parent or Guardian vs. Attorney Presence
By allowing a parent or guardian to be present in place of an attorney during a custodial interrogation, this bill essentially asserts that a parent or guardian will know the rights of their child and will be able to advise them accordingly. While it is certainly important to have a third party present as a means of protecting the child from forced confessions, it is of the opinion of the Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic that an attorney is preferable to a parent or guardian in situations when the accused's liberty is at stake.
Cost
HB 525 should have a relatively low cost compared to the resources and expenditures associated with wrongful convictions and subsequent imprisonment. The major costs will include training the law enforcement personnel, purchase and maintenance of the recording equipment, and the preservation of the recordings.4 HB 525, however, does not include appropriations to cover the costs incurred by the proposed provisions. An appropriations bill must be passed in order to ensure that electronic recordation of custodial interrogations will be funded.
Similar Legislation
Legislation mandating the electronic recording of custodial interrogations exists in Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia5. The state supreme courts of Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have ruled that law enforcement officials must electronically record interrogations of juveniles when possible6. More than 450 police and sheriff's departments throughout the country have independently adopted electronic recording procedures.7
This bill will protect the rights of an accused during a custodial interrogation and will prevent forced or false confessions. The Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic supports the passage of HB 525.
1 February 28, 2008 by Nick Burton, Student Intern, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health Class of 2008.
2 Kimberly A. Horiuchi, Assembly Committee on Public Safety, California SB 511 Senate Bill Analysis (July 7, 2007), available at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_511_cfa_20070625_095700_asm_comm.html.
3 The Justice Project, Electronic Recordings of Custodial Interrogations: Issue Overview, available at http://www.thejusticeproject.org/press/reports/pdfs/Recording-issue-overview.pdf.
4 Id.
5 725 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/103-2.1 (2005); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. Tit. 25, § 2803-B(1)(K) (2004); N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16 (2006); D.C. Code § 5-116.01 (2005).
6 Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985); State v. DiGiambattista, 813 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 2004); State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994); State v. Barnett 789 A.2d 629, 632-633 (N.H. 2002), State v. Cook, 847 A.2d 530 (N.J. 2004);State v. Jerrell C.J., 699 N.W. 2d 110 (Wis. 2005).
7 Thomas P. Sullivan, Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations: Everybody Wins, 95, J.Crim. L. & Criminology, 1126, 1131-1136 (2005).
Home . About . News . Activities . Resources
The Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic, info@ChildWelfare.net
Emory University School of Law, Gambrell Hall, Atlanta, GA 30322, (404) 727-6664.