Notes on Subject Elimination Interview Technique

Fortis Law Enforcement Training Center (Fortis)

Subject Elimination Interview Technique Overview

Terminal Performance Objective

  • Objective: Students will apply the Subject Elimination Interview (SEI) Technique in multiple interviews, evaluating responses to identify suspects for investigations.

Enabling Performance Objectives (EPOs)

  • EPO #1: Understand the psychological theory behind SEI and its purpose.

  • EPO #2: Know when to use and prepare for an SEI.

  • EPO #3: Identify principles of SEI questions.

  • EPO #4: Conduct an SEI and evaluate interviewee responses.

EPO #1: Understanding Subject Elimination Interview (SEI)

  • Definition: Behavior-based questioning method designed to maximize investigative time and effort. Innocent individuals tend to answer differently than deceptive ones.

  • Purpose: Narrow down suspect pools by distinguishing potentially guilty/lying individuals from innocent ones. Elicit verbal and/or non-verbal behavioral responses.

  • Application: Useful in non-accusatory interviews with several suspects when evidence is lacking. Research suspects ask non-accusatory questions.

  • Duration: Initial SEIs typically take 10-20 minutes per interviewee.

Key Benefits

  • Provides statistical tool to assess truth/deceptive responses to identical series of structured questions

  • Efficiently saves investigative resources by focusing on the most likely suspects.

  • Initial interviews can reveal non-verbal cues that indicate deception or truthfulness.

  • SEI questions can transition into formal interrogations if needed.

  • Prepare for re-interview under rights advisement

SEI Theory

  • Stress is “our friend”

    • An innocent person shouldn’t be stressed

  • A guilty person fears getting caught

    • Make them stressed

  • Innocent help narrow investigation

  • Guilty will attempt to muddle/complicate investigation

  • Guilty attempt to engage in 2 behaviors:

    • Convince you they are honest

    • Tell false alibi while avoiding facts

  • More likley to:

    • Be able to control their “story or explanation”

  • Less likely to:

    • Be able to control words and how they say them

    • Spontaneous utterances

    • Paralinguistic behaviors (delays in answering questions, clearing of throat, Etc…

EPO #2: Preparing for the SEI

Pre-Interview Preparation

  • Gather Background Information: Discuss case details with complainants and colleagues to identify potential suspects and their behaviors.

  • Interview Environment: Conduct interviews in a non-custodial setting to promote ease and openness.

  • Interview Strategy: Start with the most likely suspects to acquire insights first and move to less likely suspects.

  • Goal:

  • Prepping:

  • Create Questionnaire:

  • Time:

    • concise and nonvaccusatory

    • Rapport is a short explanation, dive in to be equal

    • Be non-specific but explain the situation/process to each

    Explain everyone is interviewed:

  • Conduct inn non-custodial setting:

    • Determine order of merit:

      • Most likely suspect first, least likely last

    • SEI processmis opposite for 2 reasons:

Interview Execution

  • Ask the same questions in the same order to avoid bias. Maintain a non-accusatory and concise approach throughout the interview.

  • Explain the SEI process briefly to build rapport with participants.

EPO #3: Principles of SEI Questions

  • Questions should be designed to gauge both verbal and non-verbal responses, focusing on indicators of truth and deception.

  • Example Questions:

    • “Did you (do this)___?” Learn how the phrasing might affect responses.

    • Innocent responses tend to be straightforward (e.g., “Absolutely not”); guilty responses may include qualifiers or evasion.

    • “Do you know who (did this)?

    • “Who do you think had the Best opportunity”

Behavior Indicators

  • Innocent Responses:

    • Clear, direct answers with appropriate body language and eye contact.

    • Sincere expressions of wanting to assist in the investigation (e.g., “I want to help”).

    • Doesn’t know, takes time to answer

  • Guilty Responses:

    • Evasive, defensive, quick, lack sincerety, or confused replies with poor non-verbal behavior (e.g., avoiding eye contact).

    • knows who did it, answers quickly

EPO #4: Conducting and Evaluating the Interview

Scoring and Analysis

  • Importance of Scoring: Properly score responses based on indicators of truthfulness or deception (e.g., positive, negative, or neutral).

  • Example Scoring System:

    • Positive Answer (+) leads to suspect elimination.

    • Negative Answer (-) suggests further investigation.

    • Neutral (0) does not impact the suspect pool but can be useful later.

Post-Interview Analysis

  • Evaluation Process: After interviews, tally responses and analyze them for patterns indicating truthfulness or deception.

  • Track verbal and non-verbal behaviors to inform subsequent investigative steps.

Case Study: SEI Scenario for a Theft Investigation

  • Scenario: Investigating the theft of $500 from a drop safe at the PX store.

  • All staff are aware of the theft, which helps contextualize their responses during interviews.

Follow-Up Actions

  • Conduct additional investigations based on the narrowed suspect pool.

  • Re-interview selected suspects to delve deeper into their initial responses.

  • Plan formal interrogations for those remaining in the suspect pool based on SEI results.

References

  • Detailed reference materials in the original transcript cover various studies related to deception and interviewing techniques. These include academic articles and previous studies foundational to understanding the dynamics of questioning and interrogation methods.