|| Calendar | Add A Class | College Degrees | Online Classes | DVDs & CDs | On-site Classes | Advertising | Contact Us ||
Important: To ensure future delivery of the Policetraining.net newsletter to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders) please add our "From" address email@example.com to your address book or e-mail whitelist.
During an interrogation, an investigator attempts to persuade a suspect to tell the truth, oftentimes to provide incriminating evidence that will be used in a subsequent prosecution. Further, interrogations are generally conducted in situations where there is insufficient evidence to assure a conviction and, in many cases, the suspect's actual guilt may not be 100% certain. If an investigator was required to be completely truthful with a suspect, the interrogation would sound like this: "Joe, I am not sure you committed this crime and we do not have enough evidence to prosecute you for it. Therefore, I would like you to confess to me so that we can convict you and send you to prison." Obviously, under this circumstance, no suspect would ever confess. Out of necessity, therefore, interrogation relies extensively on duplicity and pretense.
An Investigator may exaggerate his confidence in the suspect's guilt, establish a misleading reason for the interrogation, such as needing to establish the circumstances that led up to the crime, display feelings of sympathy and compassion toward the suspect that are far from genuine, and, in some cases, falsely tell the suspect that evidence exists which links him to the crime. Trickery and deceit during an interrogation, therefore, occurs on a continuum. It is the latter extreme (lying to a suspect about evidence) that raises most questions.
In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a confession obtained by the use of trickery where a homicide suspect was falsely told that his accomplice had already confessed (Frazier v. Cupp). Since then, numerous other Federal and State courts have similarly upheld confessions obtained through the use of substantial deceit by the investigator. However, courts have also imposed limits on the use of trickery and deceit. For example, an investigator cannot use a tactic that would "shock the conscience of the community," such as the investigator introducing himself as the suspect's court appointed lawyer and obtaining a confession under the pretense of needing to know the truth to best defend the suspect. Similarly, a Federal court ruled that it is improper to manufacture fictitious evidence against the suspect and using the "evidence" during an interrogation. The general guideline is that false verbal assertions are permissible, e.g., "The crime lab identified your DNA on the victim" but creating false evidence (typing up a fictitious crime lab report) is not.1
Courts recognize that falsely telling a suspect that his fingerprints were found inside the victim's home, for example, would not be apt to cause an innocent suspect to confess.2 A person of normal intelligence and mental capacity would certainly not place greater confidence in the investigator's statement than his own knowledge that he was not in the victim's home. The tactic of falsely telling a suspect that evidence links him to the crime scene has played an instrumental role in persuading many guilty suspects to confess who otherwise may not have done so. It is, however, a risky interrogation practice, and one that should be used with caution.
The inherent danger of lying to a suspect about the existence of fictitious evidence is when the suspect does not believe the investigator's statement. Under this circumstance, the investigator's credibility may be irreparably damaged. This is especially true when the suspect calls the investigator's bluff and demands to see the evidence (as frequently happens with more street-wise suspects). Once the investigator loses the suspect's trust, the suspect may dismiss the investigator's apparent confidence in his guilt, question the investigator's sympathetic demeanor, and challenge the entire pretense for the interrogation. In other words, the suspect may realize that the investigator is only interested in obtaining evidence to be used in an effort to punish him for his crime.
With this in mind, the following recommendation is offered: introduce fictitious evidence during an interrogation only as a last resort effort to stop persistent, but weak, denials or to maintain the attention of a suspect who exhibits clear signs of psychologically withdrawing. Certainly, presenting fictitious evidence against a suspect early during an interrogation should be avoided as it often results in unwanted denials.
Because of the previously mentioned hazard, only rarely does our staff out-right lie to a suspect about the existence of evidence linking him to the crime. Rather, they infer that such evidence exists. Examples of these statements include, "I wouldn't be talking to you this way unless I had proof that you were with her that night!", or, "I've seen the evidence and there's no doubt you were inside that home!" Similarly, the investigator may simply state, "We know that she got into your car right outside the school yard and we know that you drove down University Avenue with her in your car!"
Central to each of these statements, is that the investigator does not identify the specific evidence that links the suspect to the crime scene, e.g., fingerprints, eye witnesses, DNA, etc. Rather, the specific form of evidence is left unsaid. This approach minimizes the inevitable challenge by the suspect of, "Who is your witness?", or "Let me see that crime lab report."
Another approach, that has a similar safeguard, is to refer to the evidence in the future tense. This was used successfully in a case where it was known that the perpetrator left a wad of gum at the crime scene. The investigator stated, "We recovered the gum and are in the process of having the saliva within the gum analyzed for DNA markers. We both know that when we get those results back it's going to show that you were the person who chewed that gum and left it in the basket."
In summary, investigators are legally granted wide latitude with respect to the use trickery and deceit during an interrogation. While out-right lies concerning the existence of evidence that links a suspect to a crime scene or victim can be very persuasive, there is always a risk that the statement may not be believed or that the suspect will insist on seeing proof of the evidence. Therefore, it is often advantageous to merely imply the existence of such evidence, or make reference to the fact that the evidence will shortly establish the suspect's presence at the crime scene.
State v. Cayward, 552 S. 2d 971 (Fla. 1989).
by Rick Rosenthal – ILEETA Media Advisor
Tips and Bits:
Trainers are subject-matter experts. As such, reporters will seek you out as valuable sources of facts and information. I’ve always encouraged you to cooperate with reporters: it’s the best way for you to have an impact on what they say and how they say it, and help them get it right. And I’ve always encouraged you to be prepared before you work with those reporters. The Double Nickel is a part of that preparation.
The Double Nickel, as recommended in media relations training at the FBI National Academy, encourages you to ask yourself the 5 questions you pray the media will ask, and the 5 questions you pray they won’t ask, and then answer all 10 questions before you do an interview. Frankly, I don’t really care about how you answer the 5 questions that you pray the media will ask. That’s T-ball. If you strike out in T-ball, you’re beyond help. I’m far more concerned about the 5 questions you pray the media won’t ask. Those are the tough ones on which you should focus. (And don’t stop with 5 hard questions if you see a 6th, or a 7th, or a 30th also lurking.)
Your answers to those hardball questions should be factual, and they should be in brief sound bites (KISSS: Keep It Smart, Short and Simple.) Answer each question, and then shut up: 2-3 simple declarative sentences should do it. Never lie. Never speculate: tell what you know, not what you think you know. Never say, ―No comment.‖ In getting ready for any news interview, especially one that’s not just routine, apply the Double Nickel: it’s one of the tools that separates winners from losers in media relations.
Rick can be reached at 847-446-6839; or email: firstname.lastname@example.org
By Andrew G. Hawkes
As I look at law enforcement headlines across the country on a day to day basis I see the same two topics repeatedly coming to the forefront. Number one is story after freaking’ story of cops committing crimes, from dealing drugs to committing burglaries and armed robberies, not to mention the sexual assaults on duty in squad cars. Number two, right after I read how bad the criminal element is that seems to be steadily creeping into our profession, I read how department after department is lowering their hiring standards. “PD to remove entrance exam”, and “past marijuana usage OK for new recruits”, and “bad credit, no problem”. Am I the only one that wants to raise the question as to whether or not these problems correlate?
“Chief arrested for selling dope”, “sheriff sentenced in conspiracy”, “off-duty officer commits burglaries”, “DUI’s out of control in law enforcement….The newspaper headlines go on and on about cops committing crimes and becoming part of the criminal element. Yet society still holds us to a “higher standard”. If we are continually held to a higher standard, should we not continue to hire new officers that meet that higher standard?
We will never be able to fully stop some bad apples from outsmarting the system, but I don’t think we should be holding the door open for them to step right on in either. Sure it’s tough to find solid recruits, but I think we need to require more than a high school diploma and a driver’s license. The argument about lowering the standards because we cannot get any good qualified candidates because law enforcement doesn’t pay is a bunch of hogwash. Are we underpaid, you’re damn right we are. Would I have become a cop for free? You bet I would have, because I wanted to become a police officer, and I didn’t care how much I made. I believe the “want to” to become a police officer coupled with the desire to do the job no matter what, up to and including laying your life on the line is the intangible trait that we must focus on in the hiring process.
The old cliché of “You get what you pay for” is ringing loud and clear here. Sure it’s up to the city councils and the county commissioner’s court to set our salary, and we always hope they will take care of us, but even if they don’t, it’s our duty as cops, our duty as police agencies to still go the extra mile to find the best recruits that we can.
When I started in law enforcement it was common knowledge that police officer’s in Mexico were all corrupt. The more and more headlines I see about corrupt police officers are happening right here in the homeland. Let’s take back our profession before it get’s out of hand and we get the same reputation across the globe. This is American, we are the trendsetters globally, and it’s our responsibility to keep our badges shiny and polished, not dirty and tarnished.
Is anyone one with me?
Andrew G. Hawkes