The Night Shift Confession
At 2:00 AM on 10 March 2024, police officers in Ghent stop a car driven by Karim for a broken taillight. During the stop, Karim appears nervous and smells of alcohol. A breath test shows a blood alcohol level of 0.8 mg/L, above the legal limit. The officers arrest Karim and take him to the police station. At 3:00 AM, before any lawyer is present, an officer says: 'If you tell us where you hid the drugs, we can let you go home tonight.' Karim, who has no prior record, replies: 'The cocaine is in the trunk of my car.' The officers search the car and find 50 grams of cocaine. Karim is charged with drug possession and driving under the influence. At trial, Karim argues that his confession and the drugs must be excluded because he was not informed of his right to a lawyer and the officer's promise induced his statement. The prosecutor argues that the drugs would have been found anyway because the car was lawfully stopped and the trunk could be searched incident to arrest.
1. Under Belgian criminal procedure, should the confession be excluded? Discuss the right to a lawyer and the effect of the officer's inducement.
Read the worked answer
The confession should be excluded. Under Article 47bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a suspect must be informed of his right to consult a lawyer before the first interrogation. The European Court of Human Rights (Salduz v. Turkey, 2008) and Belgian case law (Cass. 2010) require that the suspect be informed of this right. Karim was not informed. Moreover, the officer's statement ('we can let you go home tonight') constitutes an unlawful inducement, rendering the confession involuntary. Under Article 6 ECHR and the Belgian law of 20 July 1990 on pretrial detention, statements obtained through promises or coercion are null. The confession must be excluded from evidence. The fact that Karim was not yet formally a suspect does not matter because he was under arrest at the time. The exclusion is necessary to preserve the fairness of the trial.
2. Should the cocaine be excluded as derivative evidence? Apply the 'inevitable discovery' doctrine under Belgian law.
Read the worked answer
The cocaine should also be excluded. Belgian law does not formally recognize the 'inevitable discovery' doctrine as in the United States. Under Article 32 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, evidence obtained through a violation of a procedural rule is null if the violation affects the reliability of the evidence or the fairness of the proceedings. Here, the search of the trunk was not incidental to the arrest for driving under the influence; the officers had no lawful basis to search the trunk without a warrant or consent. The discovery of the cocaine was directly caused by the unlawful confession. The prosecutor's argument that the trunk could be searched incident to arrest is incorrect: Belgian law requires a warrant for a vehicle search unless there are urgent reasons, which were absent. Therefore, the cocaine is derivative evidence and must be excluded. However, the breath test result remains admissible because it was obtained lawfully before the violation.