Techniques for Interrogation

Techniques for Interrogation Chapter 12 12-1

Defining the Role of the Interrogator to the Suspect • Interpersonal Theory • Humans interact within these two boundaries • Dominance • Affiliation

Complementary Principle • Two major assumptions • Interpersonal behaviors invite reciprocal behaviors • Over time these lead to a repetitive pattern of relating • The interrogator should establish a status role or connect through a rapport relationship

Interrogator Relationship • The interrogator should determine if the approach to the interrogation is best made by establishing a status role or connecting through a rapport relationship • The overriding consideration is that once the interrogator has taken on a hostile role with the suspect it is impossible to go back and later develop rapport

Dominant Relationship Pairing • A person’s recognition of the status of another brings the opposite complementary response in a dominant relationship

Expectations: a Dominant Relationship Pairing • The suspect will be submissive when the interrogator is dominant • The suspect will be cooperative when the interrogator acts distrustful • The suspect will be friendly in response to the hostile interrogator

Affiliation Relationship Pairing • When a connection develops through rapport the affiliation between the suspect and the interrogator elicits the corresponding complementary response

Expectations: an Affiliation Relationship Pairing • The suspect will respond friendly when the interrogator is friendly • The suspect will respond cooperatively when the interrogator is cooperative

Purpose of the Interrogation • The primary purpose is to obtain a statement from the suspect that acknowledges or indicates the guilt of that person • A secondary purpose is to document the lies when the truth is not forthcoming

Confession vs. Admission • Both are known as inculpatory statements • I.e., statements that put the blame on someone • They are treated the same under constitutional analysis

Confession • Is a statement made by a defendant disclosing his guilt of the crime with which he is charged and excluding the possibility of a reasonable inference to the contrary

What Does a Confession Contain? • It is admitting to his or her role in having committed a crime • It is not limited to words but may be inferred through the demeanor, conduct, and acts of the person charged with a crime • I.e., a person acts out HOW he killed the girl

Admission • Is a statement of guilty conduct, containing only facts from which guilt may be inferred • May be any information regarding the suspect and his or her role or relationship to the crime, the victim, or the place of the offense

What Does an Admission Contain? • A suspect may admit to pulling down the pants of a 2-year-old girl but denies that any criminal act took place, such as an indecent touching of her genitals • The suspect has denied criminal conduct but admitted to having the opportunity and relationship with the child

The Role of a Confession • It is only part of the investigation process • Not the primary method of gathering evidence

Over-reliance on a Confession is Bad! • May warp the investigation if collecting evidence is made secondary • May cause the case to be dropped if the confession is found inadmissible and no other evidence of guilt exists • A common view is that a confession alone is not enough to prove a person guilty

Slam-Dunk Approach to Interrogation • When the interrogator forcefully claims that the suspect is guilty and does not allow him to deny

Slam-Dunk Approach to Interrogation • Initial hardness may cause some offenders to be fearful of making statements and others will not talk at all • Do NOT use if the suspect is cooperative, mentally ill, or excessively emotional

Interrogation Approach • Interrogation tactics may be based on the offender • Offenders differ based on the level of guilt they experience • Emotional • Nonemotional

Interrogation Approach • Interrogation tactics may be based on an assessment of the suspect • Determine offender strengths and weaknesses • Guilt, remorse, or entitlement may be exploited

Non-Custodial Interrogation Situations • Occurs when the suspect is not in police custody or under arrest • The suspect must be fully aware that he or she is free to leave at any time • The awareness may be based on the location of the interrogation • The attitude of the interrogator • Follow through by not arresting the suspect

Non-Custodial Interrogation Requirements • Miranda warnings are not required • Must be given if the situation changes • Not an available option if the suspect has been arraigned in court on the crimes under investigation or the individual asks to speak with an attorney

Custodial Interrogation Situation • Occurs when the suspect is under arrest or is not free to leave because arrest is impending

Miranda in a Custodial Interrogation Situation • The offender must be given his rights per Miranda • The suspect must understand these rights and make a knowing waiver of these rights for an interrogation to take place • The suspect must make a voluntary waiver of these rights for an interrogation to take place

Interrogation Phase I — Preparation • Phase I is about the interrogator establishing control over the interrogation

Interrogation Phase I — Preparation • Step One: Determine who will interrogate • Step Two: Understand the law • Step Three: Know the case • Step Four: Establish the timing • Step Five: Determine the location

Interrogation Phase II — Develop Outcome-Based Tactics • These are persuasive arguments that are designed to overcome the resistance of a guilty suspect to confess

This is the most frequent tactic used in interrogation Encourage the suspect to “get it off his chest” or to “take this opportunity for his side to be heard” Possible fear to overcome: retaliation Empathize with the dilemma that the suspect faces Their best option is to cooperate with the police Tactic #1: An Appeal to the Suspect’s Self-interest

This may involve telling the suspect about physical evidence that demonstrates they committed the crime Possible fear to overcome: paranoia Point to a failed polygraph test as providing evidence of guilt Use the relationship that the suspect had to the victim Tactic #2: Confronting the Suspect with Existing Evidence of Guilt

If the suspect does not think that the interrogator has sufficient evidence to arrest, they may be reluctant to provide that information during an interrogation Possible fear to overcome: fear of arrest A decision may be made to delay the arrest State that “the facts of the case speak for themselves, you only have the option of cooperating at this point” Tactic #3: Undermining the Suspect’s Confidence in his or her Denials

The term “because” may be used as a persuasive word Tell the suspect that he or she committed the crime BECAUSE .. Give examples! Possible fear to overcome: fear of financial repercussions Attempt to engage the suspect with why they committed the crime Tactic #4: Identify Contradictions in the Suspect’s Alibi or Story

Look for behavioral indicators of nervousness, sweating, or frequent licking of lips or wiping of eyebrows The guilt ridden offender may be unwilling to look the interrogator in the eyes The apathetic offender will show defiance by looking the interrogator in the eye with denial Tactic #5: Asking Specific Behavioral Analysis Interview Questions

Face the repercussions of the criminal act with the offender and suggest they start over through cooperation Alternatively, minimize the repercussions and be compassionate Possible fear to overcome: loss of job Loss of status or employment loss is a considerable fear to overcome, determine which approach will maximize cooperation Tactic #6: Appealing to the Importance of Cooperation

Minimize the crime and never refer to it by the legal term Encourage the suspect to express guilt, remorse, or anger towards the victim Possible fear to overcome: shame Use empathy to overcome the fear of shame Ask why the offender did the act to allow for face-saving excuses Tactic #7 Offering Moral Justifications and Face-saving Excuses

This approach makes sense when there is more than one person involved in the crime Information provided by one partner can be embellished on and presented as fact to the other Possible fear to overcome: blame The suspect who played a minor part will be fearful of taking all of the blame Suggest that the evidence points to him, this is the chance to share the blame with others Tactic #8: Confront the Suspect with False Evidence of Guilt

Look for evidence that the suspect is insecure Did the suspect appear to take pleasure in the act? Praise and flattery may be a very successful tool to obtain a confession Possible fear to overcome: insignificance Praise and supportive statements convey a positive judgment to the suspect Tactic #9: Praising or Flattering the Suspect

This requires an over-confident approach by the interrogator It puts emphasis on the status of the interrogator and downplays the ability of the suspect to get away with the crime This tactic allows the interrogator to take charge of an interrogation by suggesting that he or she is much smarter than the suspect It is used to break down the confidence of the suspect Tactic #10: Appealing to the Detective’s Expertise and Authority

Phase III — Getting the Confession: The Basics • Leave all weapons outside of the interrogation room • Don’t verbally back the suspect into a corner • Don’t invite a denial, ask for an explanation • Don’t interrogate a handcuffed suspect • Avoid initial antagonizing • Don’t make a cross-examination confrontation • Don’t be solicitous or friendly

Getting the Confession • Step I: Make the claim • Be honest • Use their first name without title • Do not shout • Do not show anger • Be in close proximity to the suspect

Getting the Confession • Step II: Lock it in • No further discussion on innocence • Present an excuse for their actions • Give them good intentions • Minimize their culpability in the crime

Techniques for Interrogation