WELCOME TO MODERN POLICING, FBI

Thirty-four years ago in 1980, when I moved from patrol to criminal investigations in my hometown's police department, the unit had already been tape recording interrogations and witness statements for years.  We knew nothing swayed a jury more than hearing a suspect's confession come from his own mouth. I didn't realize how progressive our policy was until I moved to metro Atlanta in 1989 where NO agencies recorded statements.  The typical procedure involved a detective writing out a statement or confession by "transcribing," in essence, paraphrasing, the suspect's words. The suspect would then sign it, often without being able to comprehend what had been written.

I adopted a mandatory recording policy at my new agency, first for tape recording, followed later by videotaping. My agency was the first in metropolitan Atlanta--an area with dozens of law enforcement agencies. Prosecutors of all the local counties soon made everyone else follow our example. Today I learned the FBI didn't start recording interviews until THIS MONTH.  In fact, the written policy was that interviews and interrogations were NOT to be recorded, a rule that left skeptical juries wanting more. The new procedure will be to record all interviews until there is a compelling reason not to make a record. While the FBI has established the benchmark for many investigative procedures, they were way behind on this one.

Welcome to modern police work, FBI.

IS HE LYING?

An asset for any police officer is the ability to know when someone is lying.  Sometimes lies can be revealed when a suspect contradicts himself or provides implausible explanations.  But one of the best ways to detect lies are nonverbal cues that reveal the stress accompanying deception.  Many aspects of our bodily functions and other physical behaviors are beyond our control.  We cannot keep out bodies from perspiring or slow down our pulse rate during physical exertion or moments of stress.  It is because most suspects cannot control these actions that these cues are such effective indicators of deception.

The physical behavioral indicators described below are just some of many.  They are highly effective in helping officers detect criminal activity and protect themselves from danger.  They go beyond the simple nervousness one might experience in a 'normal' encounter with an officer, such as a traffic violation.

NO-LOOK MANEUVER:  This signal occurs before the encounter ever takes place.  At an intersection, for example, a motorist absolutely refuses to look towards the officer.  An offender who has something to hide will resort to exaggerated effort to avoid direct eye contact with a police officer in a chance encounter.

RESTLESSNESS:  A high level of stress often causes a person to be very fidgety, shifting positions frequently, pacing, crossing and uncrossing arms.  A stressed person may also try to move away, attempting to increase their comfort zone in order to reduce the anxiety. 

FALSE FATIGUE:  Signs of fatigue may actually be efforts by the body to relieve stress.  Frequent yawning and sighing are good stress relievers in these circumstances. 

BRINGING IN YOUR CHARACTER FOR QUESTIONING

In one of our last posts, we described the difference between 'interview' and 'interrogation.'  That prompted some questions from readers about how the police bring in people for questioning.  "Can a person refuse to go?" one writer asked.  "How much proof or probable cause is needed to bring someone in for questioning?" another one asked.

One of the most quoted lines in the classic movie Casablanca occurs when a police official orders his men to "round up the usual suspects." The unspoken inference is that officers will pull in numerous known and suspected criminals for some intense interrogation that will identify the culprit.

If it was only that easy.

No one, even suspects, can be taken to the station forcibly unless they are under arrest.  An arrest requires “probable cause” to believe a person committed a crime.  The idea that police can take anyone they need to question to their office involuntarily is a fallacy.

Even prisoners under arrest have a right to remain silent. Thus, it’s apparent that witnesses, “persons of interest,” and suspects can’t be compelled to answer questions.

Unlike what you see on TV, suspect are never questioned in the presence of their

INTERVIEW OR INTERROGATION?

       Writers often use the terms “interview” and “interrogation” interchangeably.  The differences are significant, however.
     The interview is strictly to obtain information. It’s the standard Q-and-A session between an officer and a witness or a victim.  It might be conducted in a home, on the street, in a detective’s office, or in an interview room. Sometimes it is recorded but often the officer simply takes notes.
     The interrogation is conducted to elicit a confession from a suspect.  Usually it occurs in an interrogation room at the police station or a similar room at the jail.  It is an “adversarial” conversation with the goal of obtaining a confession.  Psychological pressure and “strategic deception” are used by interrogators to move the suspect to confess.
     A small police station may not have an interrogation room.  A detective might question suspects in his or her office, although this is not the ideal arrangement. Too many distractions, too many items the suspect can pick up and use as a weapon.
     Interrogations should be recorded, preferably audio and video. A common tactic of defense attorneys is to attempt to suppress any confession.  A recording shows the suspect was not under duress when he confessed.
     Most officers don’t wear their weapons into an interrogation room. The firearm is secured in another location, perhaps in a gun locker designed for that purpose or locked in a file cabinet.