On March 5, 2008 the Georgia Court of Appeals, reviewed the case of Wesley Brian Stanfield. Wesley Brian Stanfield was charged with rape, false imprisonment, and child molestation in Sumter County, Georgia. At the time of the incident Wesley Brian Stanfield was employed by the Sumter County Sheriff’s Department as a Deputy Sheriff. Before trial Wesley Brian Stanfield filed a motion to suppress his statements made to a Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent. The basis for the motion was that the statement was involuntary because Wesley Brian Stanfield feared he would lose his job as a Deputy and he was coerced by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent. During the interview the Trial Court granted the motion and it was appealed.
The false imprisonment and child molestation charges were dismissed due to statute of limitations. However, the other charges remained. The Georgia Court of Appeals relied on the State v. Aiken which was heard in 2007. In the Aiken case the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the "totality of the circumstances" had to be examined in determining whether a public employee made a voluntary statement or not. When the test was applied, the Georgia Court of Appeals considered whether the state made a threat to Wesley Brian Stanfield that he would lose his job if he did not speak with the investigators, or whether a statue, rule or ordinance of which Wesley Brian Stanfield would be aware of that would cause him to lose his job.
If no threat was made then the Georgia Court of Appeals would ascertain whether Wesley Brian Stanfield felt he would lose his job for failing to cooperate and was the belief reasonable as the state action involved. The court would also examine to see if there were any statutes, ordinances, manuals, or policies that required that Wesley Brian Stanfield cooperate and would be disciplined for failing to cooperate. Furthermore, did the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent make a threat of dismissal, either written or oral, before the interview? Was Wesley Brian Stanfield allowed to leave? Was he given his right to representation?
The Trial Court found that the Sheriff Pete Smith confirmed that his policies and procedures required Wesley Brian Stanfield to cooperate with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent or he would be terminated if he failed to give a statement. So, the Trial Court determined that Wesley Brian Stanfield believed he would be terminated due to the State's action implementing the policies and requiring his cooperation.
The policy referred to by the Trial Court was contained in the policies and procedures manual instituted by the Sheriff Pete Smith when he took office in 2005. The manual was given to all Deputies including the Sheriff, Pete Smith. Rule of conduct 32 in the manual, was applicable to internal but not external investigations. It read "Employees are to cooperate with all internal investigations in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Internal Investigations Policy. Failure to cooperate with any internal investigation will result in immediate termination."
Sheriff Pete Smith testified that rule 32 applied to investigations other than of an internal matter. Furthermore, the investigation of Wesley Brian Stanfield was both external and internal in the sense that it was misconduct on the part of Wesley Brian Stanfield, a Deputy Sheriff. Sheriff Pete Smith said that had Wesley Brian Stanfield refused to cooperate he would have been immediately terminated. The termination would be based on rule number 32. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent testified that he was aware of the policies and procedures requiring Wesley Brian Stanfield to cooperate or be terminated.
Wesley Brian Stanfield testified that he was on duty when the radio operator told him to contact Georgia Bureau of Investigation office because an agent wanted to speak with him. Wesley Brian Stanfield contacted the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent who told Wesley Brian Stanfield that he wanted to talk with him but the agent would not say what it was about. Wesley Brian Stanfield realized he was the object of a criminal investigation once the interview began and he believed he would be terminated under policies and procedures if he refused to cooperate with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent.
Stanfield testified that the manual had been given to him when Sheriff Pete Smith took office and that he read the manual then. Stanfield went on to say Sheriff Pete Smith did not speak with him before the interview but was aware of rule 32 and he believed he would be terminated should he invoke his rights to council or not cooperate with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent.
The State contended that Wesley Brian Stanfield belief was not objectively reasonable. Stanfield was not told before the interview that he would be fired if he refused to give the statement. Stanfield was not ordered to go to the interview; no one from the Sheriff's office ordered him to go to the interview, and he was told he could leave at anytime. Lastly Wesley Brian Stanfield understood the interview was criminal not internal.
The state conceded that Wesley Brian Stanfield had a subjective belief that would be terminated although the policy did apply to criminal investigations. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent told Wesley Brian Stanfield he did not have to talk with him but that he, the agent, believed the policy required Wesley Brian Stanfield to cooperate with him. Sheriff Pete Smith testified that the policy applied to all investigations and that Stanfield would have faced termination if he did not answer the question. Therefore Sheriff Pete Smith and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent believed that rule 32 required Wesley Brian Stanfield to cooperate. The Georgia Court of Appeals found that the Trial Court ruled correctly and Stanfield's statements were coerced and the statement was suppressed.
Policy and procedure is in place for the protection of the agency and the officer. In this case no matter the intentions of Sheriff Pete Smith, Georgia Bureau of Investigation Agent, or the Prosecutor's belief that the statement was voluntary - it was not. In a criminal prosecution an officer has the same rights as any other citizen of the United States. It cannot be had both ways. If your policy reads as this one does it is time for a change.
