State v. Clark, 301 Ga. 7

On March 4, 2008, William Clark called 911 after assaulting and killing his girlfriend; he was detained at the scene and taken to a hospital for treatment.
Detective J.D. Stephens read Clark his Miranda rights while Clark sat handcuffed in the patrol car at the scene. Clark spoke briefly then was transported to the hospital.
Four hours later Clark was interviewed at the police station; a videotape captures most but not all of the interview. Clark says early in the recording, “This is off the record,” and the detective responds, “Yeah.”
During the recorded interview Clark makes inculpatory statements; he appears faint/distressed at times, and parts of the later interview (about 40 minutes) were not recorded.
At the suppression hearing the trial court found the detective read Miranda at the scene but did not re-read warnings at the station, made little effort to ensure Clark understood his rights, and affirmatively agreed Clark’s comment about speaking “off the record.” The court suppressed the station statements as involuntary and inadmissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Clark)	Held
Whether custodial statements made after Clark said “off the record” were admissible	Statements were voluntary; prior Miranda warnings at the scene sufficed and no subsequent re-warning was required	Detective’s affirmative “off the record” response nullified Miranda waiver and induced confession	Suppression affirmed — statements inadmissible because detective’s affirmation created a false promise and vitiated Miranda waiver
Whether detective needed to clarify that statements would be "on the record" after Clark’s comment	No further action required because warnings had been given earlier	Detective was required to disabuse Clark of any belief that statements were confidential	Detective had duty to correct misimpression; failure to do so supports suppression
Admissibility of unrecorded portion of the station interview	Unrecorded statements should be admissible if voluntary	Unrecorded statements were induced by same misunderstanding and are involuntary	Court held unrecorded portion also inadmissible as part of induced, involuntary statements
Applicability of Carswell precedent	Carswell supports admissibility where warnings were re-read and later interviews were initiated by defendant	Carswell is distinguishable because Clark was not re-read Miranda and the problematic promise was not limited to an earlier interview	Carswell distinguished; not controlling here

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and waiver requirements)
Spence v. State, 281 Ga. 697 (police promise of confidentiality nullifies Miranda waiver)
State v. Pillar, 359 N.J. Super. 249 (false assurance of confidentiality vitiates voluntariness)
Carswell v. State, 268 Ga. 531 (distinguished where warnings were re-read and later interviews were defendant-initiated)
Phillips v. State, 285 Ga. 213 (inadmissibility when waiver not shown voluntary)
Hopkins v. Cockrell, 325 F.3d 579 (officer’s promise of confidentiality undermines Miranda waiver)