The best way to avoid saying something incriminating is to not say anything at all. If an officer questions you, tell the officer you do not wish to make a statement and you would like an attorney. Repeat as needed. When police officers suspect a person of a crime, they often use the Reid interrogation technique, first developed in the s. This is the sort of questioning you see in the movies and on television.
Suspects are questioned at the police station, in a dingy room, with one officer playing "good cop" and another playing "bad cop. In real life, the Reid technique is very effective at producing confessions. This is why it has been used for over half a century. Under this technique, police rely on three concepts that are intended to lead the suspect to believe that confessing to the crime whether guilty or not is in the suspect's best interests:. If you are questioned at a police station, there is a good chance you will be subjected to the Reid technique.
Avoid saying anything incriminating by keeping your mouth shut and asking for a lawyer. Informal questioning can also occur any time a person interacts with an officer. If an officer stops you and you do not know why, you should assume that the officer suspects you of committing a crime—whether that crime is speeding or murder—and is trying to get you to confess to the crime, and you should act accordingly.
Ask if you are free to leave. If you are, then leave. 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.
Most people would assume that goes both ways — that the police must also be truthful during interrogations, but the reality is that the police are legally allowed to lie to you during an interrogation, and it is not uncommon for them to do so. But why would police lie?
During an interrogation, officers may lie about evidence they have to pressure you into confessing to a crime they believe you have committed — even if you are innocent. During individual interrogations, police told each of the five teens that the others had implicated them in committing the crime. Tankleff had attacked him, which led him to falsely confess to murder. Both of these cases involved police officers lying to teenagers.
Young people are especially vulnerable to falsely confessing under the pressure of police deception tactics. Today, there is a growing movement for change in a number of states across the US and we have the power to ban these practices by supporting legislation to ban police deception. Police have long been prohibited from using physical force during interrogations, but they are still allowed to use a variety of powerful psychological ploys to extract confessions from people. During an interrogation, police can lie and make false claims.
For example, law enforcement can lie to a defendant and say their friend or alleged co-defendant confessed, saying they committed the crime together, even when that person has not confessed to anything. Police can also claim to have evidence, such as fingerprints, linking the subject of the interrogation to the crime even if no such evidence exists.
These kinds of lies about having evidence have long been identified as risk factors for false confessions and have contributed to some of the most notorious wrongful convictions, like those of the Exonerated Five previously known as the Central Park Five.
For example, a detective might start out an interrogation by telling a suspect that the results of their investigation clearly indicate that they are guilty, even when the investigation is not yet complete. This is the first step in a guilt-presumptive interrogation method known as the Reid Technique, which permits the use of deception to get a suspect to confess.
Young people are especially vulnerable to falsely confessing under the pressure of deception because the parts of the brain that are responsible for future planning, judgment, and decision-making are not fully developed until a person reaches their mid-twenties. The coercion and deception inherent in the Reid Technique, coupled with the recognized vulnerabilities and susceptibilities of children as a group, has led to an unacceptably high rate of false confessions among juvenile suspects.
Through such tactics, the police will try to convince a person that denials are pointless, and confessing is the only option. Illinois and Oregon recently banned the use of police deception during the interrogation of juveniles, but the use of these tactics against adults is still legal in all 50 states.
New York is taking steps to end police deception in interrogations altogether. New York Senate Bill introduced by State Senator Zellnor Myrie would ban police deception in the interrogation room while requiring that courts evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used. 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:. Preparing the interrogation plan can assist the investigator in developing a strategy to convince the suspect to answer questions or confess to the crime.
Those uninitiated to the process of interrogation might wonder why anyone would possibly choose to answer questions or confess when they have been provided with their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the standard caution that they are not obliged to say anything, and anything they do say may be used as evidence.
There are several reasons that can motivate or persuade a suspect to answer questions or confess. Statements or confessions are often made despite the warnings that would seemingly deter anyone from saying anything. These reasons include:. Investigators who are familiar with these reasons and motivations can utilize them in assessing their suspect and developing a strategy for their interrogation plan. After making an arrest, an objective investigator must always be prepared to hear an explanation that will challenge the direct evidence or the assumptions of the circumstantial evidence that led to the reasonable grounds for belief to make that arrest.
The best reason an arrested suspect can be offered to answer questions is to be exonerated from the crime. It is possible, and it does occur, that persons are arrested for a crime they have not committed. Sometimes, they are wrongly identified and accused by a victim.
Other times, they are incriminated by a pattern of circumstantial evidence that they can ultimately explain. The interrogation following the arrest is an opportunity for the suspect to put their version of events on the record, and to offer an alternate explanation of the evidence for investigators to consider.
Exoneration is not just an interrogation strategy; it is the duty of an objective investigator to offer a suspected person the opportunity of make an explanation of the evidence that led to their arrest. If there is an alternate explanation for this evidence, please tell me what that is.
Conducting these investigations is also the duty of an objective investigator. Some experienced criminals or persons who have committed well-planned crimes believe that they can offer an alternate explanation for their involvement in the criminal event that will exonerate them as a suspect.
An investigator may draw answers from this type of suspect by offering the same proposition that is offered for exoneration. This is the opportunity for a suspect to offer an alibi or a denial of the crime and an alternate explanation or exonerating evidence.
It can be very difficult for a suspect to properly explain away all the evidence. Looking at the progression of the event, an interrogator can sometimes ask for additional details that the suspect cannot explain. The truth is easier to tell because it happened, and the facts will line up. In contrast, a lie frequently requires additional lies to support the untrue statement.
Examining a statement that is believed to be untrue, an interrogator can sometimes ask questions that expose the lies behind the original lie. This is particularly true of persons who are first-time offenders and particularly young offenders who have committed a crime against a person. Observing the suspect during this progression, a suspect affected by guilt will sometimes exhibit body language or facial expressions of concern or remorse.
Responses, such as shoulders slumping, head hung down, eyes tearing up, or avoiding eye contact, can indicate the suspect is ashamed and regretful of the crime. Observing this type of response, an investigator may move to a theme of conversation that offers the suspect the opportunity to clear their conscience by taking responsibility for their actions and apologizing or by taking some other action to right the wrong that has been done. Suspects who have been arrested will sometimes be willing to provide an additional explanation of their involvement or the events to reduce their level of culpability or blame for the crime.
In cases where multiple suspects have been arrested for a crime, one of those suspects may wish to characterize their own involvement as peripheral, sometimes as being before the fact or after the fact involvement. Examples of this would be a person who left the door unlocked for a break-in to take place or merely driving the getaway car. These less involved suspects hope to gain a reduced charge or even be reclassification as a witness against their co-accused.
The arrested suspect in a criminal investigation waiting in custody for interrogation has plenty to think about. Even the most experienced criminals will be concerned about how much evidence the police have for proving their connection to the crime. In the process of presenting a suspect with the opportunity to address the evidence that has been collected, an additional strategy can sometimes be engaged where there is a large volume of incriminating evidence or undeniable direct evidence, such as eyewitnesses or strong forensic evidence for circumstantial connections of the suspect to the crime.
In such cases, if the interrogator can reveal the evidence in detail to the suspect, this disclosure may result in the suspect losing hope and making a confession to the crime.
0コメント