In the world of law enforcement, the tactics used during interviews have long been a subject of scrutiny and debate. One such tactic—lying to suspects about evidence—has been a controversial tool in the arsenal of investigators. While U.S. courts permit this practice under certain conditions, recent considerations are prompting a reevaluation of its implications.

The Legal Landscape

Let’s dissect this practice: U.S. courts allow law enforcement to employ deception during interrogations, provided that the deception does not involve the fabrication of evidence. In essence, investigators can mislead suspects about the strength or existence of evidence against them. However, even within these legal parameters, there lie potential pitfalls that can compromise the integrity of investigations and subsequent legal proceedings.

Voluntary Confessions and Coercion

First and foremost, the admissibility of a confession obtained through deception hinges on its voluntary nature. Despite the legality of lying to suspects, if a defense can demonstrate that the deception coerced the confession, it may be deemed involuntary and subsequently suppressed. This not only jeopardizes the case but also undermines the fundamental principles of justice and fairness.

A Fragile Balance

In my journey to become a better student of interviewing, I recall reading about an incident at a suppression hearing that served as a poignant example of the risks associated with this tactic. While the admission was ultimately upheld as legal, the challenge posed by the defense underscores the fragility of relying on deception. Even when judicial rulings favor law enforcement, the mere revelation of deception can sow doubt in the minds of jurors, potentially swaying the outcome of trials.

Media Influence

Moreover, societal attitudes toward interrogation methods are evolving, influenced in part by media portrayals. Platforms like Netflix have spotlighted the issue of false confessions through documentaries, shaping public perception and raising questions about the ethics of deceptive practices in the pursuit of justice.

Case Law and Precedents-Because We Can Doesn’t Mean We Should

• Frazier v. Cupp (1969): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers could use deceptive tactics during interrogations, as long as the suspect is not in custody and physical force is not employed.
• State v. Nightingale (2012): State courts have permitted police to deceive suspects about a range of factual matters, including falsely stating the existence of incriminating DNA evidence and satellite photography of crime scenes.

A Better Approach

In light of these considerations, it’s refreshing to hear that some investigators have shifted their approach away from deceptive practices. In my interview and interrogation course, I emphasize the strategic use of real evidence during interrogations. Rather than relying on deception, the practice of challenging suspects based on discrepancies between their statements and the actual evidence is a more effective approach. This strategy not only aligns with ethical standards but also enhances the effectiveness of investigations. The bottom line; STOP LYING TO YOUR INTERVIEWEE.

Upcoming Classes

For those interested in learning more about effective interviewing techniques, consider attending one of our classes at www.advancedpoliceconcepts.com.  Let’s continue to strive for a balance between investigative effectiveness and safeguarding individual rights within the criminal justice system.