Law Enforcement Training Academy - Interrogation Process PDF

BLOCK: 1100 CRIMINAL NVESTIGATION SECTION: 1101 INTERROGATION PROCESS INSTRUCTOR: TIME ALLOTTED: 4 HRS DATE PREPARED: September 10, 2008 REPLACES: June 6, 1996 +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Lesson Plan | Notes...

BLOCK: 1100 CRIMINAL NVESTIGATION SECTION: 1101 INTERROGATION PROCESS INSTRUCTOR: TIME ALLOTTED: 4 HRS DATE PREPARED: September 10, 2008 REPLACES: June 6, 1996 +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Lesson Plan | Notes | | | | | **1. SCOPE** | | | | | | The fundamental principles of | | | interrogation will be studied in | | | this section. | | | | | | Procedures and approaches for a | | | successful interrogation will be | | | discussed and practiced. | | | | | | **A. Interrogation and | | | Confessions after \"Minnick\"** | | | | | | Since 1966, law enforcement | | | officers have adhered to the | | | guidelines and restrictions of | | | the landmark Miranda decision. | | | However, several Supreme Court | | | decisions handed down since 1988 | | | have substantially altered the | | | rules of Miranda concerning | | | officer interrogation of | | | individuals in custody and the | | | admissibility of confessions | | | thereby obtained. | | | | | | Prior to this time, however, the | | | United States Supreme Court had | | | held a rather \"dim view\" of | | | in-custody interrogation\" based | | | primarily on about thirty years' | | | worth of bad confessions. | | | | | | Their contention was that the | | | modern practice of in-custody | | | interrogation is psychologically | | | rather than physically oriented. | | | As they stated in Chambers vs. | | | Florida 309 U.S. 227, the court | | | recognized that coercion can be | | | mental as well as physical and | | | that the suspect\'s blood need | | | not be spilled to show | | | unconstitutional inquisition. | | | Interrogation still takes place | | | in privacy, and privacy results | | | in a gap in the knowledge of | | | what, in fact, goes on in the | | | interrogation room. They further | | | contended that many police | | | training manuals document | | | procedures employed with success | | | in the past and which recommend | | | various effective tactics. The | | | officers are told by the manuals | | | that the principal psychological | | | factor contributing to a | | | successful interrogation is | | | privacy-being alone with the | | | person under interrogation. To | | | highlight the isolation and | | | unfamiliar surroundings, the | | | manuals instruct police to | | | display an air of confidence in | | | the suspect\'s guilt and to | | | maintain an interest in | | | confirming details of that guilt. | | | | | | When the techniques described | | | prove unavailing, the tests | | | recommend they be alternated with | | | a show of some hostility, such as | | | use of the \"good guy-bad guy\" | | | routine. Failing this, the | | | interrogators sometimes are | | | instructed to induce a confession | | | out of trickery. Compound this | | | with years of reported and often | | | documented cases of \"third | | | degree\" or police brutality | | | practices during interrogation, | | | and it is no surprise that the | | | Miranda Rules come into effect. | | | | | | The U.S. Supreme Court in | | | attempting to guarantee the | | | rights of the defendant, | | | especially while in custody, | | | concerned themselves with | | | primarily the interrogation | | | atmosphere and the evils it can | | | bring. | | | | | | In Miranda vs. Arizona, the | | | police arrested the defendant and | | | took him to a special | | | interrogation room where they | | | secured a confession from this | | | indigent Mexican defendant who | | | was a seriously disturbed | | | individual with pronounced sexual | | | fantasies. | | | | | | He was not provided legal | | | counsel. | | | | | | In Vignera vs. New York, the | | | defendant made oral admission to | | | the police after interrogation in | | | the afternoon, and then signed an | | | inculpatory statement upon being | | | questioned by an assistant | | | district attorney later the same | | | evening. | | | | | | In Westover vs. United States, | | | the defendant was handed over to | | | the Federal Bureau of | | | Investigation by local | | | authorities after they had | | | detained and interrogated him for | | | a lengthy period, both at night | | | and the following morning. After | | | some two hours of questioning, | | | the federal officers had obtained | | | signed statements from the | | | defendant. | | | | | | Lastly, California vs. Stewart, | | | the local police held the | | | defendant five days in the | | | station and interrogated him on | | | nine separate occasions before | | | they secured his inculpatory | | | statement. In Stewart, the | | | defendant was an indigent Los | | | Angeles black male who had | | | dropped out of school in the | | | sixth grade. | | | | | | In all of the cases cited, the | | | court found the defendant\'s | | | statements to have been | | | involuntary in the traditional | | | terms. In none of these cases did | | | the officers undertake to ensure | | | that the statements were truly | | | the product of \"free choice.\" | | | | | | (The above from The Casebook on | | | the Criminal Law, | | | | | | Federal Bureau of Investigation | | | Legal Counsel Division) | | | | | | **B. Miranda and Voluntariness** | | | | | | Prior to Miranda vs. Arizona, the | | | test of the admissibility of | | | confessions was voluntariness. | | | The Miranda Rule was formulated | | | by the United States Supreme | | | Court to further the application | | | of this fundamental principle. | | | Thus, the Miranda Rule does not | | | preclude the use of any | | | confession that is voluntary! | | | | | | Simply stated, by way of review: | | | | | | 1\. First, a statement that is | | | volunteered by any person is | | | admissible even though the | | | Miranda Warnings have not been | | | given (Person volunteering | | | information in a noncustodial | | | situation.) | | | | | | 2\. Second, failure to give the | | | Miranda warnings in a custodial | | | situation will normally cause | | | the courts to treat the | | | statement as if it was given | | | involuntarily. (This is because | | | it is presumed by the courts | | | that there can be no valid | | | waiver of the Miranda rights | | | unless the suspect has first | | | been advised of those rights.) | | | | | | 3\. Third, a statement may be | | | involuntary even though the | | | suspect has been advised of the | | | Miranda rights (if the | | | statement is the product of | | | coercion by the police.) | | | | | | C. Assertion of the Right to | | | Counsel | | | | | | Although an assertion of the | | | right to remain silent may permit | | | later resumption of questioning, | | | an assertion of the right to | | | counsel stands on a different | | | footing. | | | | | | Two landmark Supreme Court cases | | | have now clarified | | | | | | Miranda\'s view of the | | | consequences of an assertion to | | | the right to counsel. These cases | | | are: Edwards vs. Arizona and | | | Minnick vs. Mississippi. | | | | | | NOTE: All officers should be | | | thoroughly familiar with the | | | holding in these two cases. | | | | | | 1\. Edwards vs. Arizona --- In | | | this case the Supreme Court | | | announced that once a suspect | | | asserts the right to counsel | | | that suspect \"is not subject | | | to further interrogation by the | | | authorities until counsel has | | | been made available to him.\" | | | | | | 2\. Minnick vs. Mississippi --- | | | Any ambiguity in Edwards and | | | subsequent decisions was | | | resolved in December 1990 in | | | Minnick, wherein the Supreme | | | Court rejected the view that | | | Edwards required only that the | | | suspect has consulted with | | | counsel prior to the initiation | | | by police of further | | | questioning. The court said in | | | Minnick: | | | | | | \"Whatever the ambiguities of our | | | earlier cases on this point, we | | | now hold that when counsel is | | | requested, interrogation must | | | cease, and officials may not | | | re-initiate interrogation without | | | counsel present, whether or not | | | the accused has consulted with | | | his attorney.\" | | | | | | **D. Assertion After Edwards and | | | Minnick** | | | | | | As a result of these two | | | holdings, Edwards and Minnick, | | | the effect of an assertion to the | | | right to counsel may currently be | | | stated as follows: | | | | | | 1\. When a suspect asserts the | | | Miranda right to counsel, | | | police must terminate the | | | questioning immediately. | | | | | | 2\. Regardless of whether or not | | | the suspect has consulted with | | | an attorney in the interim, the | | | questioning may not be resumed | | | at any later time unless: | | | | | | a\. The suspect\'s attorney is | | | present at the questioning, or | | | | | | b\. The suspect initiates the | | | new contact with the police. | | | | | | NOTE: As a result of these cases, | | | police are now forbidden to | | | \"urge a prisoner who has | | | initially declined to confess to | | | change his mind, or indeed, even | | | to ask whether he has changed his | | | mind. \" | | | | | | **OBJECTIVES** | | | | | | When the trainee completes this | | | lesson, he/she will be able to: | | | | | | 1\. Identify the purpose of an | | | interrogation. | | | | | | 2\. Identify the difference | | | between an interview and an | | | interrogation. | | | | | | 3\. Identify at what point an | | | interview can become an | | | interrogation and the | | | procedures to follow when this | | | occurs. | | | | | | 4\. Identify the difference | | | between: | | | | | | a\. Statements | | | | | | b\. Admissions | | | | | | c\. Confessions | | | | | | 5\. Identify how \"body | | | language\" plays an important | | | role during an interrogation. | | | | | | 6\. Identify the difference | | | between a custodial and | | | noncustodial interview or | | | interrogation and when Miranda | | | may or may not apply to each. | | | | | | 7\. Identify the desired | | | environment for an informal | | | (street) interrogation and a | | | formal (station or bureau) | | | interrogation. | | | | | | 8\. Identify the steps that | | | should be taken to prepare for | | | an interrogation. | | | | | | 9\. Identify different styles or | | | approaches that can be used in | | | interrogations. | | | | | | **APPLICABILITY OF MIRANDA** | | | | | | A. Miranda applies only when | | | testimonial evidence is being | | | sought. The Fifth Amendment | | | applies only to testimonial | | | self-incrimination. | | | Non-testimonial incrimination | | | is not covered and Miranda | | | warnings are not applicable | | | under these circumstances. | | | Examples of non-testimonial | | | evidence include: | | | | | | 1\. Blood samples | | | | | | 2\. Handwriting exemplars | | | | | | 3\. Voice exemplars | | | | | | 4\. Having the suspect put on | | | items of clothing | | | | | | However, some police agencies may | | | require that the Miranda warnings | | | be given even when | | | non-testimonial evidence is being | | | obtained. | | | | | | **B. Custodial interrogations** | | | | | | Miranda applies only to | | | \"custodial interrogations.\" The | | | | | | Miranda warnings are required | | | only when police are engaged in a | | | \"custodial interrogation.\" An | | | interview is \"custodial\" if the | | | suspect\'s liberty has been | | | restricted to a degree associated | | | with a formal arrest.\" | | | | | | 1\. Obviously, an interview is | | | \"custodial\" for purposes of | | | Miranda when the suspect has | | | been formally placed under | | | arrest prior to the beginning | | | of the interview. | | | | | | However, it is clear that the | | | interview may also be | | | | | | \"custodial\" even though no | | | formal arrest has been made. The | | | following are examples of court | | | decisions demonstrating when | | | Miranda warnings are and are not | | | required. | | | | | | Required: | | | | | | 1\. Suspect in jail for one | | | offense when questioned about | | | another offense. | | | | | | 2\. Suspect questioned in his | | | own room in a boarding house; | | | was told he was under arrest | | | and that he could not leave the | | | room. | | | | | | 3\. Suspect questioned in his | | | own home by officer holding a | | | warrant for his arrest. | | | | | | **Non-Required:** | | | | | | 1\. Suspect was interviewed in | | | his own home in a | | | | | | \"relaxed atmosphere.\" | | | | | | 2\. Suspect agreed to meet | | | officers at police station; was | | | told he was not under arrest, | | | and was allowed to go home | | | after the interview. | | | | | | 3\. Suspect voluntarily came to | | | police station; was told that | | | he was not under arrest, and | | | was allowed to go home after | | | the interview. | | | | | | 4\. Drunk driving suspect was | | | subjected to routine traffic | | | stop and asked to perform field | | | sobriety test. | | | | | | 5\. The suspect, who had been | | | injured in an automobile | | | accident, was questioned by a | | | police officer while being | | | detained at the scene by an | | | ambulance driver. | | | | | | 6\. Suspect was detained briefly | | | on the street by an officer for | | | investigation. | | | | | | 7\. Suspect was the target of a | | | court-ordered wiretap. | | | | | | The test is whether the interview | | | is custodial, not whether the | | | investigation has focused on the | | | individual being interviewed. | | | Just because an investigation has | | | focused on the suspect does not, | | | in itself, require that the | | | Miranda warnings be given. On the | | | other hand, even if the person | | | being interviewed is not a | | | suspect, the warnings may be | | | necessary. | | | | | | If during a non-custodial | | | interview, a suspect makes | | | damaging admissions that will | | | result in his arrest, or, if he | | | attempts to leave, it is highly | | | desirable that the Miranda | | | warnings be given before further | | | questioning. | | | | | | An interview is an | | | \"interrogation\" for purposes of | | | Miranda if the suspect is | | | subjected to \"express | | | questioning or its functional | | | equivalent.\" | | | | | | Interrogation in this context is | | | a situation in which the police | | | know or should know that their | | | questioning \"is reasonably | | | likely to elicit an incriminating | | | response from the subject.\" | | | | | | **2. Express Questioning** | | | | | | If the officer questions the | | | suspect with the intent to elicit | | | incriminating responses, it is an | | | \"interrogation,\" for purposes | | | of Miranda. It is also an | | | interrogation if the officer | | | should realize that the | | | questioning is likely to elicit | | | such responses, even though the | | | officer did not intend that | | | result. | | | | | | **3. Functional Equivalent of | | | Express Questioning** | | | | | | Officers sometimes try to obtain | | | a confession by indirect methods, | | | such as making comments in the | | | presence of the suspect which | | | they hope will induce the suspect | | | to confess. Such comments may be | | | held to be the \"functional | | | equivalent\" of express | | | questioning, and any statements | | | obtained will, in the absence of | | | the Miranda warnings, be | | | inadmissible. | | | | | | If, however, the officers did not | | | intend their comments to elicit a | | | confession, the statement may be | | | admitted. In a recent case, two | | | officers, while transporting a | | | murder suspect, exchanged | | | comments between themselves about | | | their fears that children might | | | find the missing weapon and | | | injure themselves. The suspect | | | then volunteered to show where | | | the weapon was. The court found | | | that the officers had not | | | \"interrogated\" the suspect. The | | | opinion observed that the | | | officers\' comments were not | | | calculated to elicit an | | | admission, but were rather just | | | \"natural expressions of | | | concern.\" | | | | | | **INTERROGATION** | | | | | | A. An interrogation is a | | | questioning of a person suspected | | | of having committed an offense. | | | | | | 1\. A suspect in an offense is a | | | person whose guilt is | | | considered, on reasonable | | | grounds, to be a practical | | | possibility. | | | | | | B. Interrogation may also include | | | the questioning of a person who | | | is reluctant to make a full | | | disclosure of information in his | | | possession which is pertinent to | | | an investigation. | | | | | | C. Interrogation is directed | | | toward obtaining: | | | | | | 1\. A confession | | | | | | a\. A direct acknowledgement of | | | guilt on the part of the | | | accused. | | | | | | 2\. An Admission | | | | | | a\. An incriminating statement | | | that indicates but does not | | | acknowledge guilt. | | | | | | 3\. A Statement | | | | | | a\. A declaration regarding the | | | facts of an incident. | | | | | | D. An interrogation should be | | | conducted as soon as possible | | | after the offense takes place. | | | | | | 1\. The longer you wait, the | | | more time a suspect has to: | | | | | | a\. Justify his actions to | | | himself | | | | | | b\. Come up with a workable | | | realistic story or lie, or find | | | people to cover his story. | | | | | | c\. Influence witnesses | | | | | | d\. Disappear | | | | | | **INTERROGATION ENVIRONMENT** | | | | | | A. Whenever possible, conduct | | | your interrogation in a quiet | | | room set up for that purpose. | | | | | | 1\. If practical, the room | | | should only be used for | | | interrogation. | | | | | | 2\. It should be free of | | | distractions | | | | | | 3\. Furniture should not be too | | | comfortable and at a minimum. | | | | | | B. Privacy is important, | | | especially when dealing with | | | crimes of a sensitive nature. | | | | | | 1\. People will not confess if | | | they are embarrassed. | | | | | | B. Don\'t neglect officer safety. | | | Is your firearm in a secure | | | location. | | | | | | **VI. NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION** | | | | | | **A. Non-verbal Cues** | | | | | | This section focuses on nonverbal | | | cues which interrogators can use | | | to detect deception while | | | questioning subjects. The ability | | | to detect deception would | | | obviously be of great value in | | | interrogation since it would | | | enable an officer to evaluate the | | | veracity of responses. An | | | accurate evaluation of | | | truthfulness will save time | | | otherwise wasted following false | | | leads instead of focusing | | | investigative attention on honest | | | responses. | | | | | | The nonverbal cues one can read | | | in detecting deception are | | | frequently called \"leakage\" by | | | authorities in the field because | | | these nonverbal signals can | | | escape from a person despite his | | | or her attempts at control during | | | deception. It is as if the | | | subconscious is betraying the | | | speaker. | | | | | | Significantly, some parts of the | | | body can be controlled in a | | | deception situation better than | | | others. In this discussion the | | | leakage signals which are | | | difficult to control include: | | | | | | 1\. Elements of kinesics | | | | | | 2\. Dress | | | | | | 3\. Environment | | | | | | 4\. Proxemics | | | | | | 5\. Paralinguistic | | | | | | Each different type of nonverbal | | | cue can and does frequently blend | | | with one or two other types of | | | cues. Because of this, fine | | | dividing lines between types are | | | not always possible. Ambiguity is | | | also a possibility given the | | | incomplete state of knowledge on | | | the subject. | | | | | | For this reason, any discussion | | | of this subject must be | | | approached with the understanding | | | that one instance of nonverbal | | | behavior may not always have a | | | one-to-one correlation with a | | | specific meaning. Like words in | | | language, nonverbal communication | | | may have varied meanings. A | | | gesture might reflect a | | | motivation other than that | | | suggested in this paper. As a | | | result, evaluation of cues | | | discussed here must take the | | | whole context of the questioning | | | situation into account to ensure | | | accurate interpretation. | | | | | | **B. Detecting Nonverbal Cues** | | | | | | For maximum success in detecting | | | nonverbal cues, an interrogator | | | needs to make sure that he is in | | | a position to detect all possible | | | leakage during questioning. Thus, | | | the seating arrangement chosen | | | for an indoor interrogation can | | | significantly affect an | | | officer\'s ability to detect | | | nonverbal leakage. To benefit the | | | officer, the subject should be | | | seated as much in the open as | | | possible. Leakage in the form of | | | movement of the hands, trunk, | | | legs or feet will be much more | | | apparent than such movement would | | | be behind a signal blunter. | | | Interrogations conducted in areas | | | under the subject\'s control (for | | | example, the home) should have | | | similar seating when possible. | | | | | | Success in detecting leakage can | | | also be protected by one other | | | precaution. Time after time, | | | researches in nonverbal | | | communications have found in | | | experiments that when an observer | | | has a chance to see a subject | | | giving known honest answers | | | before seeing him lie, the | | | observer\'s ability to detect | | | honesty increases significantly | | | when compared with situations | | | where no baseline of honesty has | | | been established. Thus, before | | | officers can accurately gauge | | | when nonverbal leakage is | | | apparent, it is vital that they | | | establish a behavioral baseline | | | which determines what is | | | \"normal\" for that individual | | | under scrutiny in that situation. | | | | | | Such a baseline is vital because | | | one individual might act | | | differently from others under | | | identical circumstances. In | | | addition, since interrogation is | | | likely to be a very tense | | | situation, an officer detecting | | | nervous behavior is a product | | | | | | of the situation or of the | | | question currently being | | | considered. Under interrogation, | | | even an innocent subject\'s voice | | | may quaver, and the hands may | | | shake. A more experienced subject | | | may act much calmer despite | | | culpability. During deception, | | | the cooler individual may be | | | betrayed through leakage which | | | can be contrasted to earlier | | | reactions. | | | | | | **C. Gestures** | | | | | | The first group of gestures to be | | | discussed involves hand-to-face | | | movements. In one common pattern, | | | the hand is used to cover the | | | mouth and the person talks | | | through the fingers as if hiding | | | or trying to keep the words from | | | escaping. Conversely, steepling, | | | the holding of the fingertips in | | | a steeple fashion in front of the | | | body or face, suggests | | | confidence, even smugness, on the | | | subject\'s part. | | | | | | Several authorities also cite | | | hand-nose contact as a source of | | | deception clues. One authority | | | observes that deception is very | | | frequently accompanied by nose | | | touching which he suggests may be | | | a modification of the mouth | | | cover. If, before answering a | | | question, a subject slightly rubs | | | the nose of the index finger, | | | negation or hostility may be | | | indicated. The movement can also | | | suggest doubt or uncertainty as | | | if the subject is not confident | | | of the answer being contemplated. | | | Other hand to face contacts which | | | suggest deception are: | | | | | | 1\. Stroking the chin | | | | | | 2\. Pressing the lips | | | | | | 3\. Rubbing the cheek | | | | | | 4\. Scratching the eyebrows | | | | | | 5\. Pulling the ears | | | | | | 6\. Grooming the hair | | | | | | Experiments have found that | | | self-manipulation (that is, body | | | contact from arms, hands, | | | fingers, legs, or feet) increased | | | during deception. These | | | experiments also revealed leakage | | | in rapid arm, hand and foot | | | activity and gross movement of | | | the trunk and shifting of the | | | hips. | | | | | | Similarly, fidgeting indicated | | | unwillingness to cooperate. Two | | | examples occurring during | | | deception include: | | | | | | 1\. Looking at the watch | | | | | | 2\. Grooming | | | | | | **D. Dress** | | | | | | Dress can become a signal blunter | | | or an indication that a subject | | | feels vulnerable with a given | | | question. A subject may suddenly | | | close or button up his coat or | | | start tugging nervously at his | | | pants leg. Such behavior may not | | | be accidental or irrelevant since | | | the subject may be betraying a | | | fear of having his deception | | | uncovered. Other less obvious | | | signals for men would include: | | | | | | l\. Straightening the collar | | | (and thus covering the neck | | | more,) | | | | | | 2\. Tugging at a closed collar | | | or shirt cuffs, and | | | | | | 3\. Smoothing out the tie. | | | | | | For women: | | | | | | 1\. She might toy with top | | | button of blouse. | | | | | | 2\. Tug at hem of dress | | | | | | Sudden attention by subjects to | | | spots on clothing, dandruff on | | | shoulders, or lint might also | | | betray a subconscious attempt to | | | purge oneself of the guilt | | | brought on by deception or may | | | represent a feeble attempt to | | | direct attention away from the | | | subject to something outside of | | | him. One authority suggests such | | | attention also indicates | | | disapproval of another person. | | | | | | **E. Environment** | | | | | | Environment is another nonverbal | | | cue that should be considered, | | | although it plays a less | | | significant role in interrogation | | | than it might in other | | | interpersonal relations. In | | | situations under an officer\'s | | | control, there is little that a | | | subject can do to alter the | | | environment. One option that is | | | open to him is to move the chair | | | about. Such a minor act can be | | | significant. A movement away from | | | the officer--- turning the chair | | | sideways or leaning it on its | | | back legs--- indicates an | | | unwillingness to cooperate. It is | | | an attempt to put distance | | | between subject and interrogator | | | by altering environment. Such an | | | act during a suspicious answer | | | might suggest deception. | | | | | | When interrogation occurs in an | | | area controlled by the subject | | | (home or office) similar clues | | | can be expected to occur more | | | frequently than in the first | | | instance. In fact, a subject may | | | even build signal blunders by | | | positioning a briefcase or purse | | | between subject and interrogator | | | or by toying with a sofa pillow. | | | | | | **F. Proxemics** | | | | | | This is another aspect of | | | nonverbal communication which is | | | interwoven with the other aspects | | | to some degree. Proxemics is | | | concerned with the significance | | | of space people take up and the | | | distance people put between | | | themselves and others. Earlier, | | | movement (however minute) away | | | from the interrogator was noted | | | as suggesting escape. Other | | | proxemic clues are available. | | | Generally, in uncomfortable | | | situations when the subject is | | | being figuratively crowded, he | | | may close up and take up less | | | space than when feeling expansive | | | or open. The relaxed subject | | | sitting with legs spread and arms | | | at the side may suddenly cross | | | the arms and legs. Such movement | | | can suggest awareness of | | | vulnerability and fear of | | | discovery and can be significant | | | if it occurs during a suspected | | | answer. By contrast, the subject | | | who leans forward during an | | | answer and gestures with open | | | arms is more likely to be honest | | | than dishonest. | | | | | | **G. Paralanguage** | | | | | | A final simple, yet valuable, | | | source of nonverbal data is found | | | in paralanguage, or nonverbal | | | characteristics of the voice. | | | Among those are: | | | | | | 1\. Pitch | | | | | | 2\. Tone | | | | | | 3\. Volume | | | | | | 4\. Duration | | | | | | While the earlier mentioned | | | hand-to-mouth gesture ties in | | | here as a crude attempt at | | | blocking the voice from | | | transmitting, duration and pitch | | | are of most relevance in this | | | context. | | | | | | For some time now, it has been | | | known that deceptive answers have | | | a slower onset than honest ones. | | | In deception, the subject is not | | | as quick to respond to a | | | question. In addition, a | | | deceptive answer is liable to be | | | longer and vaguer than an honest | | | one. The length is thought by | | | some to be an attempt to make the | | | deceptive answer more convincing | | | than the subject feels it is. | | | Length may also be a result of | | | pauses and hesitations as the | | | subject stumbles through the | | | answer. | | | | | | Pitch is the final source of | | | paralinguistic leakage to be | | | considered here. Researchers have | | | found that the pitch of a | | | person\'s voice often rises | | | during deception. In addition, | | | one experimenter found that | | | observers accurately read a rise | | | in | | | | | | pitch as a sign of deception and | | | read low pitch as a sign of | | | relaxation and sociability. | | | | | | Nonverbal leakage can be a very | | | valuable tool in interrogation. | | | An interrogator who keeps his | | | subject highly visible and | | | establishes a behavioral baseline | | | is in a good position to observe | | | and evaluate nonverbal cues as | | | they occur. At the same time, the | | | officer must realize the possible | | | ambiguity of the clues and their | | | close interdependence on one | | | another. Through careful | | | observation of kinesics, dress, | | | environment, proxemics, and | | | paralanguage, the officer can | | | make effective evaluation of | | | subject response. | | | | | | **THE SUCCESSFUL INTERROGATION** | | | | | | A. The interrogator should make | | | proper preparations before | | | beginning the interrogation. | | | | | | 1\. Memorize, if possible, | | | details of the case. | | | | | | 2\. Know the material you will | | | be seeking. | | | | | | a\. Write down important key | | | questions. | | | | | | 3\. Research your subject. | | | | | | B. There are ten steps to a | | | successful interrogation. | | | | | | 1\. Introduce yourself. | | | | | | 2\. Try to put subject at ease. | | | | | | a\. Ask him questions about | | | himself, family, etc. | | | | | | 1\) Use this time to observe | | | body language, his | | | communication level, education | | | level. | | | | | | 2\) This process eases the | | | subject into talking to you, | | | loosens him up. | | | | | | 3\. Tell reason for | | | interrogation. | | | | | | a\. Good technique is to ask, | | | \"Do you know why you are | | | here?\" | | | | | | 4\. Introduce Miranda Warnings | | | | | | a\. Use a set form is possible. | | | | | | b\. If they waive their rights, | | | it\'s best to get a signed | | | waiver. | | | | | | 5\. Start questioning about the | | | time before the crime. | | | | | | a\. If subject has an alibi, he | | | usually will not have covered | | | the time span before the crime, | | | thus causing conflicts in his | | | story. | | | | | | b\. Let him talk freely; don\'t | | | interrupt, but guide the | | | conversation. | | | | | | c\. Listen carefully; make | | | mental notes of time gaps or | | | physical impossibilities of the | | | story. | | | | | | d\. Watch for admissions of | | | other lesser crimes. | | | | | | 1\) Done to throw you off. | | | | | | 2\) Can be used later to work | | | out a deal. | | | | | | 6\. Tell suspect how he is | | | implicated. | | | | | | a\. Give as little detail as | | | possible. | | | | | | b\. Use no names. | | | | | | 7\. Go back to the beginning and | | | pinpoint details. | | | | | | a\. Try to catch him in lies. | | | | | | b\. Present physical evidence to | | | dispute his story. | | | | | | 8\. Watch for indications that | | | the subject wants to confess. | | | | | | a\. Statements such as, \"If a | | | guy is guilty, what would | | | happen to him?\" | | | | | | 9\. Try one last time before | | | giving up. | | | | | | a\. \"I know we haven\'t found | | | the whole truth here; you would | | | feel better if we cleared this | | | up.\" | | | | | | 10\. Never end negatively | | | | | | a\. \"I\'ll be getting back in | | | touch with you.\" | | | | | | **CONFESSIONS AND STATEMENTS** | | | | | | A. Suspects make confessions | | | because they are in a state of | | | mind which leads them to believe | | | cooperation is the best course of | | | action to follow. | | | | | | 1\. They may confess because of | | | a strong influence such as | | | physical evidence, witnesses. | | | | | | 2\. They may confess because of | | | a cumulative influence of a | | | number of small persuasions, | | | none of which would work alone, | | | that were brought out in the | | | interrogation. | | | | | | 3\. They may confess because of | | | overwhelming guilt. | | | | | | B. However, there are many | | | reasons why a suspect would not | | | confess. | | | | | | 1\. Fear of punishment. | | | | | | 2\. Fear of the effect that his | | | involvement may have on his | | | family, friends, employment. | | | | | | 3\. Fear of co-conspirators. | | | | | | 4\. Concern for co-conspirators. | | | | | | 5\. Fearful of being labeled a | | | snitch or stool pigeon. | | | | | | 6\. Apprehension about future | | | employment. | | | | | | 7\. Worry about reputation. | | | | | | 8\. Stubbornness | | | | | | 9\. Compulsion not to surrender | | | stolen money or property. | | | | | | C. Reduce statements or | | | confessions to and have the | | | suspect review, sign, and date | | | it. | | | | | | 1\. May be handwritten or typed. | | | | | | 2\. May be in narrative or | | | question and answer form. | | | | | | D. If the suspect you are | | | interrogating cannot write or has | | | problems, suggest tape recording | | | his statement. | | | | | | 1\. In taking a tape recording, | | | the officer should, at the very | | | beginning, identify himself, | | | date and time of the | | | interrogation, who is present. | | | | | | 2\. Again, advise the subject of | | | his Miranda Rights and have him | | | acknowledge them on the tape. | | | | | | 3\. Good to have another officer | | | present to verify the | | | subject\'s statements and can | | | testify to the subject\'s | | | cooperativeness. | | | | | | 4\. One's successful way of | | | doing the tape recorder | | | interrogation is in question | | | and answer format. | | | | | | 5\. Another suggestion and good | | | practice, verify at the end of | | | the tape recording that the | | | tape has not been turned off, | | | having the subject acknowledge | | | this. | | | | | | 6\. Finally, when you are at the | | | end of the interrogation, give | | | the time and state the date. | | | | | | **INTERROGATION STYLES** | | | | | | A. Interrogation styles differ | | | with the subject and crime | | | | | | involved and with the officer | | | doing the investigation. | | | | | | 1\. Each officer develops a | | | personal style that works for | | | him/her and that he/she can be | | | comfortable with. | | | | | | **B. There are numerous styles or | | | techniques that can be adopted.** | | | | | | l\. Adversary Approaches | | | | | | a. Direct Accusation --- \"You | | | did it.\" | | | | | | b. Fishing Approach --- \"Just | | | give me a little | | | information.\" | | | | | | c. Accomplice Approach --- \"He | | | told us all about it.\" | | | | | | d. Pride/Religious Belief | | | Approach --- \"Do you believe | | | in God?\" | | | | | | 2\. Sympathy Approach | | | | | | a. \"I understand.\" Approach. | | | | | | b. \"I would have probably done | | | the same thing.\" Approach. | | | | | | c. \"Lots of people do what you | | | did.\" Approach. | | | | | | 3\. Combination Approach | | | | | | a. Good Guy/Bad Guy Approach. | | | | | | b. C. The only way to comprehend | | | and develop good | | | interrogation styles is to | | | experience the interrogation | | | situation. | | | | | | c. Observe interrogations and | | | different interrogation | | | techniques and styles. | | | | | | d. Take part in the | | | interrogation process; learn | | | from mistakes; and practice | | | repeatedly. | | | | | | **INTERROGATION** | | | | | | **A. Interrogation vs. | | | Interview** | | | | | | 1\. An interrogation differs | | | from an interview/casual | | | conversation in that one of the | | | participants may be withholding | | | information. | | | | | | 2\. A suspect is a person who, | | | in light of the available | | | information, a reasonable | | | observer would conclude as | | | withholding information. | | | | | | 3\. An interrogation may be used | | | when dealing with a reluctant | | | witness. | | | | | | **B. Purpose of an | | | Interrogation:** | | | | | | 1\. Seek | | | intentionally/unintentionally | | | withheld information. | | | | | | 2\. A confession | | | | | | a\. A statement acknowledging | | | guilt and admitting | | | culpability. | | | | | | 3\. An Admission | | | | | | a\. A statement which | | | acknowledges guilt without | | | confessing, even if the | | | statement was meant to be | | | exculpatory. | | | | | | 4\. A formal statement | | | | | | a\. A commitment as to the | | | person\'s knowledge of the | | | incident. | | | | | | **C. Interrogation Environment** | | | | | | 1\. The location should be free | | | of distractions and provide | | | basic creature comforts. | | | | | | 2\. Should be in a room designed | | | for that purpose. | | | | | | a\. Free of distractions | | | | | | b\. Free