Should interrogation

In this chapter, we will examine the interviewing, questioning, and interrogation of suspects as information gathering techniques police use to aid them in investigations. In modern day policing, interviewing, questioning, and interrogation techniques are measured, objective, and ethical. They are aimed at the goal of discovering the truth; not just getting a confession to a crime.

While there has been a significant evolution to more objective and ethical practices, the courts still remain vigilant in assessing the way police interview, question, and interrogate suspects during criminal investigations. The courts expect police to exercise high standards using practices that focus on the rights of the accused person, and minimize any physical or mental anguish that might cause a false confession.

In meeting these expectations, the challenges of suspect questioning and interrogation can be complex, and many police agencies have trained interrogators and polygraph operators who undertake the interrogation of suspects for major criminal cases. But not every investigation qualifies as a major case, and frontline police investigators are challenged to undertake the tasks of interviewing, questioning, and interrogating possible suspects daily.

The challenge for police is that the questioning of a suspect and the subsequent confession can be compromised by flawed interviewing, questioning, or interrogation practices. With the above in mind, this chapter will focus on several salient issues, including:.

Police investigations can be dynamic, and the way events unfold and evidence is revealed can be unpredictable. This premise also holds true for interviewing, questioning, interrogating suspects. Players in a criminal event may be revealed as suspects at different stages of the investigation. To properly secure and manage the statement evidence that is gained during interactions with suspects or possible suspects, it is important for investigators to understand the actions that should be taken at each stage, while remembering that interviewing, questioning, and interrogating are terms that refer to separate stages in the process of gathering verbal responses from a suspect or a possible suspect.

But each stage is different in relation to when and how the information gathering process can and should occur. The differences between these three stages needs to be defined in the mind of the investigator since they will move through a process of first interviewing, then questioning, and finally interrogating a suspect. When this progression occurs, the investigator needs to recognize the changing conditions and take the appropriate actions at the correct junctures to ensure that, if a confession is obtained, it will be admissible at trial.

Given this, let us examine the operational progression of these three stages and identify the circumstances that make it necessary to switch from one stage to the next. Interviewing a possible suspect is the first stage and the lowest level of interaction. In fact, the person is not even definable as a suspect at this point.

As pointed out in our chapter on witness management, suspects often report criminal events while posing as witnesses or even victims of the crime. The investigator receiving a statement report from such a person may become suspicious that they are not being truthful; however, until those suspicions are confirmed by evidence that meets the test of forming reasonable grounds for belief, the investigator may continue to talk to this possible suspect without providing any Section 10 Charter or cautions.

The transition point for an investigator to move from interviewing a witness or victim to detaining and questioning the person as a possible suspect should occur when real evidence is discovered giving the investigator reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is involved in the event. At this point, the person is a suspect a should be detained for the suspected offence and provided the appropriate Section 10 Charter and Statement Caution before proceeding with the questioning of the suspect.

Questioning a suspect is the next level of interaction. For a suspect to be questioned, there will be some type of circumstantial evidence that allows the investigator to detain that suspect.

In our previous scenario of the young man found at 3AM standing under the tree in a residential area at the boarder of an industrial complex one block away from the building where a break-in was confirmed to have taken place, that young man was properly detained, chartered, and warned for the investigation of the break-in. However, there was no immediate evidence that could link him to that actual crime at that point.

He was only suspected by the circumstantial evidence of time, conduct, and proximity to the event. He was obligated to provide his name and identification. If he had tried to leave, he could have been arrested for obstructing a police officer in the execution of duty. The investigator at the scene of that incident would have questioned this suspect, and by his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the suspect would not be obliged to answer questions.

This right to not talk does not preclude the investigator from asking questions, and the investigator should continue to offer the suspect an opportunity to disclose information that may be exculpatory and enable the investigator to eliminate that person as a suspect in the crime being investigated.

As an example of this, again, consider our young man who was detained when found standing under the tree near a break-in. If that man had answered the question what are you doing here by stating that he lived in the house just across the street, and when he heard the break-in alarm, he came outside to see what was happening, this would greatly reduce suspicion against the young man once this statement was confirmed.

Subsequent confirmation by a parent in the home that they had heard him leave when the alarm sounded could eliminate him as a suspect and result in his release. Interrogation is the most serious level of questioning a suspect, and interrogation is the process that occurs once reasonable grounds for belief have been established, and after the suspect has been placed under arrest for the offence being investigated.

Reasonable grounds for belief to make such an arrest require some form of direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence that links the suspect to the crime. Of course, where an arrest is made, the suspect will be provided with their charter rights and the police caution, as per the following:.

You may call any lawyer you want. There is a hour telephone service available which provides a legal aid duty lawyer who can give you legal advice in private. This advice is given without charge and the lawyer can explain the Legal Aid Plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with the telephone number.

If the suspect has already had communication with the police in relation to the offence being investigated, they should be provided with the secondary caution. This secondary caution serves to advise the accused person that, even if they have previously made a statement, they should not be influenced by that to make further statements. Once the accused has been afforded the opportunity to speak with a lawyer, the caution obligations of the police to the accused have been met, and the suspect may be questioned with respect to their involvement in the offence.

These cautions and warnings may sound like a great deal of effort aimed at discouraging a suspect from saying anything at all to the police, and, in many cases that is the result. However, if the cautions are properly administered, and the opportunities to speak with counsel are properly provided, a major obstacle to the admission of any future statements has been satisfied.

Interrogation generally takes place in the formal environment of an interview room and is often tape-recorded or video-recorded to preserve the details of what was said. A video recording is the preferred means because it accurately represents the environment of the interview room in which the interrogation was conducted. In challenging the processes of an interrogation where a statement has been made by an accused, defence counsel will look for anything that can be pointed to as an oppressive environment or threatening conduct by the investigator.

Within the appropriate bounds of maintaining an environment of safety and security, the investigator should make every effort to demonstrate sensitivity to these issues.

Seating in the room should be comfortable and balanced for face to face contact. The investigator should not stand over the suspect or walk around the room behind the suspect while conducting the interview. More than one investigator in the room with the suspect can be construed as being oppressive and should be avoided.

The suspect should be offered a beverage or food if appropriate and should be told that a bathroom is available for their needs upon request. The demeanour of the investigator should be non-aggressive and calm, demonstrating an objective professional tone as a seeker of the truth.

Setting a non-aggressive tone and establishing an open rapport with the suspect is not only beneficial to demonstrate a positive environment to the court, it also helps to create a positive relationship of openness and even trust with the suspect. This type of relationship can be far more conducive to gaining cooperation towards a statement or even a confession. Prior to beginning the actual interrogation, the investigator should prepare an interrogation plan by:.

The police do not generally invite suspects to the police station unless they intend to keep you there. If the po po asks you to go to the police station to answer some questions, they are probably going to interview you and then arrest you. They might ask you to take a polygraph test even though it is well established that polygraphs are not reliable.

And they have the right to falsely tell you that the polygraph shows your answers were untruthful. Lying about polygraph results is a common tactic that they use to try to elicit incriminating information and confessions. Part of law enforcement training is learning psychologically coercive interrogation techniques, and unfortunately, these techniques often lead to false confessions.

Police officers are trained to have total control over interrogations so that they have an advantage, and it results in putting you at a disadvantage. That is why the only time you should talk to the police is when you have a skilled and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney by your side. More than 50 years ago, the United States Supreme Court addressed these coercive and manipulative interrogation techniques that frequently result in false confessions.

Instead of ruling that it is illegal for the police to lie, trick, and deceive you, the Supreme Court came up with the Miranda warning requirement instead. Effectively, the police can still use coercive interrogation techniques, so long as they read you your Miranda rights. If you have something to confess, tell God. If you have nothing to confess, tell God.

And whatever you do, do not talk to the police without first consulting with a lawyer. Your lawyer has taken an oath and is duty-bound to be on your side. If not, then say that you do not wish to answer any questions and you wish to speak to an attorney. It is an urban myth that police officers can never lie.

There is no law or rule against police officers saying that certain evidence exists or that a co-defendant has confessed, even if is this is not true. Police are generally prohibited from making threats "If you do not confess, we will make certain that you never see your children again" and promises "If you confess now, we will charge a less serious crime" , although the lines between impermissible threats and promises and allowed police tactics are far from clear.

Again, the best way to protect yourself from police tactics it with the assistance of an attorney. Your attorney can investigate the case and find out what evidence, if any, police have against you. There have been numerous high profile cases of people exonerated, often by DNA evidence, after falsely confessing to a crime that they did not commit.

Psychological research shows that juveniles and people with diminished mental capacity are at greater risk for false confessions and that—crazily enough—people that are innocent may be more likely to falsely confess on the mistaken belief that they can confess, end the interrogation, and then get everything sorted out later. Mandatory recording of police interrogations in their entirety has been shown to reduce false confessions and some jurisdictions have adopted this reform.

If you are accused of, charged with, or questioned about a crime, do not make a statement to police without a lawyer present. Invoke your rights — say, "I do not wish to make a statement. I am invoking my right to silence. I would like an attorney. An attorney can help you decide what, if anything, you should say to police. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site.

The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Market Your Law Firm. Lawyer Directory. Call us at 1 Tactics Police Use to Get a Confession.