criminal investigation questions

LESSON 10 - INTERROGATING SUSPECTS

This lesson supplements the reading in Chapter 7 of the textbook, pages 143-149

As noted in Lesson # 9 , Witnesses are interviewed in order to gain information regarding the crime. The atmosphere is generally cooperative with most witnesses being willing subjects.

By contrast, interrogation is the questioning of suspects---individuals upon whom the investigation has focused as being the perpetrators of the crime. The objective is to obtain admissions of incriminating information and/or confessions of guilt. The atmosphere is coercive with an offensive-defensive dynamic between the interrogator and a generally unwilling subject.

Interrogation Law

(See Pages 143-144 in the textbook)

Most people are familiar with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and how officers are generally required to read these rights to a suspect in custody before questioning. Once someone is considered by police to be a suspect of a specific crime, the ways that officers communicate with the individual change. In an initial part of the investigative process officers may seek information from witnesses involved without having a complete sense of how each person is involved. This information can range from name, telephone number, and address to work information and additional background that a person may voluntarily provide. However, at the point that a person is considered a suspect of a specific crime, the interview becomes an interrogation that is a conversation with the intention of eliciting admissions or a confession from the suspected individual. If the setting is considered custodial—that is, the person is not or believes he is not free to leave—then the interrogating officer must make the suspect aware of his rights before he is questioned. Casually talking with someone in a public place would not necessarily be considered custodial, and so the conversation would not require a warning against self-incrimination. If several officers approached a person and stood around him in a manner that made the individual feel he could not simply walk away from the encounter, a custodial setting has likely been created.

At this point in our investigation, we are talking about someone who is a suspect. Through prior investigation, they have been identified as a person of interest who is involved in the commission of the crime. This discussion will address the issues and considerations of questioning a person in police custody, generally at police headquarters.

Interrogators must read the rights and have the person sign a form acknowledging their rights so that statements will be later ruled admissible in court. The courts look carefully at the issue of voluntariness of a statement or confession.

The 1966 landmark Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona established the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination for anyone accused of a crime. The case additionally addressed the provision of the Sixth Amendment that “the accused shall . . . have the assistance of counsel.” Most police departments have procedures to guide officers conducting custodial interrogations. The officer must inform the person of their right against self-incrimination. Department forms are often used to have suspects also read and sign an acknowledgment of their rights. This admonition should be read to the individual and, if a form is used, it should be signed by a witness, ideally not just the officer conducting the interview or interrogation.

It should be noted that numerous exceptions have developed to account for certain circumstances regarding this area of criminal law. If an officer arrives on the scene of an incident, for example, and asks the onlookers, “What happened here?” and one person blurts out, “I did it, I shot him,” that excited utterance may be used against the person. The officer was not intentionally or specifically focusing on someone as a suspect; rather, he was trying to understand the circumstances of what he was trying to deal with. A suspect may also make statements in trying to establish an alibi that can be countered if they are inconsistent with statements made by the person but not previously admissible because law enforcement officers failed to advise her of her rights. Essentially, you cannot have your earlier statements suppressed and then make up a new story as if you had not said something previously.

For the purposes of our discussion, there are no exceptions. We have identified a suspect who is in custody, and we are initiating an interrogation for the purposes of using any information obtained against the suspect. The MIRANDA WARNINGS are recited to the subject as a matter of course:

Planning the Interrogation

As with interviews, advance preparation is critical to ensure the most effective interrogation. The investigator will want to review all updated information regarding the case before conducting an interrogation of a suspect. This preparation allows the detective to have a good idea of the sequence of events and to have some advance knowledge of what the suspect may claim, as well as possible motivations in the crime. All of this information can help devise strategies for questioning including specific questions to ask during the conversation. The detective may be able to verify certain pieces of information prior to meeting with the suspect and this will give additional insight once the interrogation begins if the suspect makes clearly false statements. Statements already made by the suspect in prior interactions, perhaps between an accuser and suspect, can play into how a detective prepares for the next stage of questioning.

Unlike interviews, where there may be a choice of locations for questioning, Interrogations are always conducted at police headquarters, under strictly controlled conditions. Planning the setting in advance of the interrogation will also allow the investigator to arrange the physical setup of a room and minimize potential distractions. As previously discussed in Lesson #9 - “Interviewing Witnesses”, many agencies have dedicated rooms or offices specifically for interviewing and interrogation of victims, witnesses, and suspects. In general, the room selected to conduct interrogations should meet the same specifications as the interview room. Although the emphasis here is not so strongly focused on the comfort and warm atmosphere we try to create for witnesses, the objective is ultimately the same--to create an environment that will be conducive to the subject cooperating and providing as much information as possible. Experienced interrogators recognize that just as voice and body language can influence the tone and conduct of a conversation, so can the right setting.

Interrogation Methods

There are many styles used or adopted by investigators as they conduct interrogations. Some of these styles and methods develop from an investigator’s personal experience in communicating with victims, witnesses, informants, and suspects. Detectives will also decide which interrogations should be handled by one officer, by alternating officers coming in and out of the interrogation room, or by two detectives simultaneously. There are advantages to each of these approaches or the use of a combination. It is not uncommon for an interrogator to appear sympathetic to a suspect and offer rationalizations to the suspect for why they may have committed a particular crime. However, detectives must be very careful to avoid any tactics that might be construed as outright deception or psychological coercion. These were prohibited by the Supreme Court in the Miranda decision and can lead to suspect statements being ruled inadmissible at the trial.

The Interrogation Process

Similar to the interview of a witness, interrogations of suspects generally follow four steps:

1. Introduction

In every case, a formal interrogation begins with the recitation of the Miranda Warnings and the signing of the acknowledgement and waiver by the suspect. It may seem odd that, after being given such warnings, any suspect would want to talk to the police, especially without an attorney present. However, in the over half-century since the warnings were mandated, countless suspects have indeed agreed to be questioned by the police and provide incriminating information. Although the situation is coercive and the subject is generally reluctant or unwilling to be open and cooperative, It is the challenge to the interrogator to create an atmosphere in which the subject does voluntarily communicate. This includes establishing rapport and a connection, much the same as with a willing witness.

It is helpful to begin the interrogation with non-threatening questions that will put the subject at ease and facilitate talking. General questions about the individual’s background, family, activities, etc. will encourage conversation. It is advisable to hold off dealing with the details of the crime as long as possible so that the subject will get comfortable with speaking to the investigator without feeling confronted or intimidated.

2. Information Gathering

As in interviewing, the objective of an interrogation is to gather information and answer the 5 W’s and 1 H...Who, What, When, Why, Where and How. The investigator should guide the subject to tell their story in a chronological sequence of events, beginning with the events prior to the incident (such as how they came to know the victim), moving to the event itself and following into the aftermath of the crime.

At the appropriate time, the detective may appeal to logic and list the evidence that points to the suspect. Most approaches will involve encouraging the subject to talk at length so that as much information as possible can be gained while also listening for inconsistencies of story and observing for inconsistencies between statements and physical behavior. Among the most popular methods used in the United States for many decades is the Reid interview method that combines statements to a suspect with questioning the suspect and all the while closely observing verbal and physical actions and reactions. In a series of steps the detective informs the suspect of his status as the primary focus of an investigation and then proceeds to talk about reasons or excuses why perhaps the suspect committed a crime. The investigator will be anticipating denials by the suspect as well as excuses the suspect may offer. Through effective communication techniques the investigator will show sincere interest in all that the suspect says and again be analyzing the person’s behavior to determine if a shift in the suspect’s mind-set is bringing the conversation closer to an admission or confession. These two are not the same thing. An admission is something short of a confession to the crime: “I saw the victim that day,” “Sure, I’ve been at the victim’s house before,” etc. A confession is generally stating full responsibility: “I waited until the clerk turned her back, and then I grabbed all of the money I could and I ran with it!”

Admission: an acknowledgement of incriminating information relating to:

· Motive - “He cheated me”

· Intent - “I swore I would get revenge”

· Acts of Preparation - “I bought a gun”

· Knowledge - “I knew where he kept the money”

· Opportunity - “He gave me a key to his apartment”

· Benefit - I was a beneficiary on his life insurance”

Confession - an outright statement of guilt - “I killed him”

If the interviewer sees behavior that indicates a growing likelihood of admitting guilt by a suspect, the detective will be prepared to offer choices to a suspect to maintain a cooperative communication. If an interrogation reaches this point, an investigator will move to asking details of the crime and perhaps assuring the suspect that the information and their cooperation will be made known to the prosecutor in the case. However, no promises of consideration, deals or leniency should ever be made by the detective. Any such guarantees would be grounds for challenging the admissibility of the confession.

3. Recording

While recording a statement of a witness is optional in an interview, interrogations always lead to a formally recorded statement. Depending on the practices of the investigating agency, interrogations are usually recorded by video or audio from start to finish. Many departments and prosecutors also require a statement in writing by the suspect to document the information in the subject’s own words and to show voluntariness.

The Recording of the interrogation is discussed in the textbook om pages 148-149, “Documenting the Confession”.

4. Conclusion

After the formal statement of the subject has been recorded, with all admissions and /or a confession documented, a final review of the questioning is undertaken to clear up any discrepancies, inconsistencies or details that might be lingering. This is also a good opportunity to question the suspect about other crimes that they might want to talk about. This has been very beneficial in cases involving serial raptors or murderers. If here are open cases similar to the one being investigated that have not yet been resolved, the subject can be questioned about them. Experience has shown that in these situations, there is often a brief window of opportunity, in which the suspect has been relieved of guilt and may be willing to admit to other crimes. This may be due to the psychological relief that comes from the act of confession or it might be an effort to gain leverage in the disposition of their case.

Important Considerations in Interrogation

Rapport

Developing rapport with a subject early in the interview can be very valuable to ultimately obtaining a confession. Spending time with the subject discussing non-threatening topics will put the person at ease. The questions asked by the interviewer during the rapport building process should not be personal. These questions can be as simple as verifying their address, phone number, the spelling of a name or work history. For interrogators who prefer to evaluate behavioral and physiological responses to questions the rapport building process allows them to establish the subject’s normal responses to questions. This makes evaluating truthful and deceptive responses later in the interview easier. A common occurrence in normal conversations is mirroring. Both parties will mimic the posture, gestures and mannerisms of the other. When building rapport the interviewer can mimic the posture and gestures of the subject. Once the interviewer feels that rapport has been established he or she should move slightly (cross or uncross legs etc). If the subject mirrors this movement rapport has been established.

Signs of Deception

There is no guaranteed way to determine if a subject is lying. There are no typical nonverbal behaviors that are associated with deception. Not all liars display the same behavior in the same situation. Additionally, behaviors will differ across deceptive situations. The investigator has to rely on his or her experience and instincts to make that determination. Changes in behavior in response to questions should be noted. If the time has been taken to establish rapport with the subject, deceptive responses may be more obvious. Any one word or behavior on its own should not be considered an indicator of dishonesty. However, if the behavior is linked to a question about the subject’s involvement in the investigation there is a good chance that the behavior is an indicator of dishonesty. Behaviors should be consistent when the question is repeated and deceptive signals typically occur in clusters. Following are behaviors that may indicate dishonesty:

Posture:

• Slumping over or leaning back in the chair.

• Sitting in a way that protects the abdomen.

• Shifting position in the chair

Hand and Arms:

• Placing the hand over the mouth to muffle words or hide expressions.

• Arms crossed with the thumbs extended.

Legs and Feet:

• Movement of legs and feet

• Legs crossed with the knee raised to protect the abdomen.

• Legs crossed with arms holding the leg in place as a barrier.

Head and Neck:

• Head down can indicate a negative attitude or submission.

• Head back looking down the nose.

• Head nodding or head shaking

Eye movement can be an indicator of deception. Once the interrogator has determined the normal responses to questions he or she may be able to evaluate the truthfulness of a subject’s response based on eye movement. This concept is based on a belief that most people move their eyes in a certain direction when recalling and creating information. For example, if a subject is asked to recall the color of the shirt they wore the day before their eyes would move up and to their left while they retrieved the memory. If the subject decided to lie, their eyes would shift up and to the right while they created an answer.

There are also verbal indicators of deception that interrogators must interpret. These may or may not be accompanied by an observable behavior. The most telling verbal indicators are when the words do not match the physical behaviors that accompany them. For example, if the subject says “no” but shakes his or her head in a “yes” gesture. Following are some verbal indicators of dishonesty:

• Skipping around in sentences.

• Stopping sentences or leaving off the end.

• Inappropriate laughter.

• Starting to speak in the third person.

• Saying that they have done things (similar to the things currently under investigation) wrong in the past.

• Repeating the interviewer’s question.

• Asking the interviewer to repeat the question.

• Asking the interviewer “are you accusing me”?

• Giving very short answers.

• Overgeneralizations (any, all, never, always etc).

• Saying “I can’t recall”.

The following phrases are usually indicators that the subject is going to finish the sentence with a lie:

• “I swear on the bible that I didn’t…”

• “To tell you the truth…”

•“To the best of my knowledge…”

• “You may not believe this but…”

• “I know that this sounds strange but…”

Psychological Forces at Work on the Subject

· Guilt - desire for confession and relief

· Childhood Influences - parental shame

· Fear or Hatred of Police Authority

· Fear of Punishment

· Desire to Protect Others

· Stress Limiting Memory

· Desire for Preferential treatment - plea bargaining