M6: Interrogation Law

Typical Interrogation Dynamics and Tactics

• Environment and Atmospheric Factors

  • Interrogations often occur in windowless rooms located at the rear of police stations.
  • The suspect is typically closeted with one or two detectives.
  • The objective is to slowly but surely break down the suspect's resistance.

• Common Psychological Levers

  • Confrontation with evidence.
  • Exploitation of the suspect’s fear regarding the consequences of non-cooperation.
  • Exploitation of guilt feelings.
  • Appealing to the suspect's vanity.

• Duration and General Nature

  • The majority of interrogations are brief, lasting no more than $30$ minutes.
  • These standard sessions primarily involve direct questioning.
  • Extended interrogations can last for hours and employ sophisticated trickery.

• Specific Deceptive Techniques

  • Impersonated Friendship: Police may pretend to be the suspect's best friend, claiming they are only there to help.
  • Rationalization: Providing the suspect with an excuse or justification for the crime. Examples include:
    • "I would have done the same thing in your shoes."
    • "It sounds like you acted in self-defense."
    • "You’ll feel better if you talk."
  • Manufacturing Evidence: Police have been known to lie about existing evidence or even manufacture it entirely.
  • Pre-Plea Bargaining: Police may offer unauthorized deals for cooperation. Examples include:
    • Promising a lighter sentence if the suspect talks.
    • Threatening the death penalty if the suspect remains silent.
    • Note: Strictly speaking, only the prosecutor is authorized to negotiate such deals, yet police frequently engage in this behavior.

Legal Standards and the Fifth Amendment

• Constitutional Basis

  • The primary legal governing force is the Fifth Amendment, which states: ‐no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’‐
  • Under current law, nearly all interrogation techniques (except for coercive pre-plea bargaining) are routinely permitted by the courts.

• The Coercion Requirement

  • The Supreme Court emphasizes that only techniques that "coerce" statements are considered unconstitutional.
  • Trickery that does not reach the level of coercion is legally permissible under Supreme Court precedent.

• Permissible Deception in Case Law

  • Courts generally allow police to impersonate friendship and provide rationalizations for crimes.
  • Lying about evidence is permitted up to a certain point.
  • Specific Precedents:
    • The Supreme Court refused to exclude a confession where police lied about finding the suspect's fingerprints at the crime scene.
    • The Supreme Court allowed a confession where police falsely informed the suspect that a co-defendant had already confessed.

• Violations of the Fifth Amendment

  • A violation occurs when police promise a specific benefit for a confession ($e.g.$, a reduction in sentence).
  • A violation occurs when police threaten significant harm if a confession is withheld ($e.g.$, an increase in a sentence).
  • In these instances, the courts agree the actions are coercive and violate constitutional rights.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Procedural Safeguards

• Context and Applicability

  • The decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in $1966$.
  • The requirement for warnings applies only to interrogations that take place while a person is "in custody."
  • It does not apply to "friendly questioning" on the street or casual approaches by police.

• Mandatory Miranda Warnings

  • The right to remain silent.
  • The warning that anything said can and will be used against the suspect in court.
  • The right to an attorney during the interrogation.
  • The provision that an attorney will be provided free of charge if the suspect is indigent (cannot afford one).

• The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

  • Informally known as the "right to remain silent."
  • The theoretical importance lies in informing the suspect and the police that the suspect can stop talking at any time.
  • The suspect can request an attorney at any time, which effectively ends the interrogation in the absence of counsel.
  • The warnings are intended to prevent police from becoming too aggressive and to prevent the suspect from feeling oppressed.

Limitations, Exceptions, and Judicial Interpretations

• Police Maneuvers

  • Police may treat the warnings as "mere boilerplate."
  • They may imply that asserting rights is a "big mistake," a tactic frequently seen on television and in real life.

• Judicial Hostility

  • Following the Miranda decision, the Supreme Court's membership changed, leading to increased hostility toward the Miranda rules.
  • The Public Safety Exception: This allows police to forgo warnings if they need to locate a weapon that could endanger the public.
  • Ambiguous Legal Advice: The court has upheld warnings that suggest the right to an attorney only applies after the suspect sees a judge, despite this being legally incorrect.
  • Unequivocal Assertion: Any assertion of the right to counsel or silence must be "unequivocal." Statements like "I think I’d like an attorney" or "Maybe I need an attorney" may not trigger Miranda rights.

• Exploitation of Suspect Misunderstandings

  • The Oral vs. Written Myth: Many suspects believe that as long as they do not sign a written statement (signing on the "dotted line"), their oral incriminating statements cannot be used against them.
  • The Silence Trap: Despite the right to silence, many suspects believe their silence will be used against them in court or by the police. They feel compelled to speak to avoid looking guilty, even if what they say is self-incriminating.
  • Courts have ruled that if warnings are given, the government is not responsible for these misunderstandings; they are merely benefiting from "confused suspects."

Statistical Realities and Philosophical Concerns

• Confession Rates

  • Confession rates after Miranda are not significantly different from rates before the ruling.
  • Approximately $80\%$ of suspects talk after being given the warnings.
  • Approximately $60\%$ of suspects eventually confess.

• The Problem of False Confessions

  • A "nontrivial number" of people confess to crimes they did not commit.
  • Vulnerability Factors:
    • Feeling pressured by police tactics.
    • Youthfulness of the suspect.
    • Mental disability making the suspect vulnerable to suggestion and trickery.
  • Police Perspective: Since custody requires "probable cause," police often operate under the assumption the suspect is guilty and ignore protestations of innocence.

• Scholarly and Philosophical Perspectives

  • Critics argue the burden of proof should rest entirely on the government without assistance from the defendant.
  • The Inquisition Comparison: Scholars warn that without a right to silence, the government might rely on pressuring people into talking rather than performing difficult investigative work like searches.
  • International Trends: Many European countries have adopted Miranda-type warnings to bolster the dignity of suspects and prevent police from over-pressuring individuals to the point where they "clam up" entirely.