Interview and interrogation training is all about learning what to say, how to say it, and knowing why it’s being said. Law enforcement and other officials need to know how to detect the truth, identify deception, and uncover who committed the crime.
A common question arises:
When interviewing suspects, is it legally acceptable to employ the use of deception?
The Answer:
In 1969, in Frazier v. Cupp (394 U.S. 731), the United States Supreme Court upheld the use of misrepresenting evidence to the subject.
Interview and interrogation methods, investigative interviewing, and detecting deception training are all about listening closely to the subject to find the truth in their statements. As an interviewer, what should and should not be said is just as important.
What is Deception in an Interrogation?
The use of deception in an interrogation can be defined by social expectations and legal expectations. Legally, during an interrogation, it is important to:
- Not violate the rights of a subject
- Avoid force or the threat of force
- Do not use the threat of inevitable consequences
- Do not promise leniency
- Follow all guidelines as put forth by the local court
Socially, however, deception may be viewed differently. This is an important distinction that can affect the views of a jury in determining the credibility and tactics of an interviewer during a legal court case. Socially, deception during an interrogation may be viewed as misleading evidence, implicating sentences, or fabricating falsehoods to determine the truth of a statement.
So how does one conduct an interview or interrogation while considering the legal and ethical uses of deception?
Ethical Issues in Interrogation Deception
False Confessions through Deceptive Interrogation
The primary concern with the use of deception during an interrogation is the elicitation of a false confession. Vulnerable suspects prone to easy manipulation may provide false confessions during the use of deception during an interrogation.
False confessions can end with the conviction of an innocent person, the true perpetrator still uncharged, and ultimately undermines what the legal justice system aims to do: protect, serve, and deliver fair justice.
Law enforcement and other officials must carefully consider their use of deception from the viewpoint of the public eye. Is the end goal to bring justice to the guilty party rightfully? Were all legal boundaries followed? Were the rights of all parties protected? What methods of deception were used, to what end, and why?
Psychological Deception in Interrogations
Psychological deception in interrogations is a fine line law enforcement must understand in order to conduct all interrogations legally. The most common forms of psychological deception include:
- Lying about evidence
- Declaring to have more information about the case than is true
- Sympathizing with the suspect
- Claiming a co-defendant has already admitted to their involvement in the crime
- Exploiting the conscience by playing on a suspect’s sense of guilt or morality
While most of these forms of deception do not intrude on the legal rights and boundaries of an interrogation, law enforcement officials must understand where the boundaries lie within psychological deception.
Consider the length of the interrogation, the vulnerability of the suspect, the evidence at hand, and if any other interrogation practices will help lead to a more stable confession.
Interrogation Deception Methods
When using deception in an interrogation, it is important to consider the “why” behind the use of the deception and what boundaries will stop the deception before it goes too far.
Is the suspect being protected both legally and ethically? Is the use of deception during the interrogation being done carefully, with tact and thought, to find the guilty party of a crime? Is the suspect vulnerable and prone to manipulation, therefore at risk of giving a false confession?
Consider the use of deception methods, when its use is most critical, how to use them, and perhaps alternative methods.
Deceptive Interrogation Practices
These are some examples of the most common uses of deception during an interrogation. It is wise to use these sparingly and with proper judgment. Judges, jurors, and other parties will critically examine how a confession was received, and it is important to have the trust of all parties that all methods used were appropriate.
- Telling a suspect their co-defendant confessed to a crime
- Declaring they have the suspect’s fingerprints at a crime scene
- Stating there was DNA evidence of the suspect’s at the crime scene
Coercive and Deceptive Interrogation Methods
While some forms of deception during an interrogation are legal and allowed in court, other, more coercive, methods of deception are not allowed.
The most cited case of deception used in an interrogation gone too far is the New York case from 2014, People vs. Thomas, in the case of an infant’s death. The following methods of coercion were deemed to have an overbearing impact on the defendant’s will and the confession was found inadmissible.
- False assurances of the intention of the crime (accidental vs intentional injuries)
- False assurances no arrest would be made if the crime was an accident
- Threats to arrest the wife of the suspect
- Lying about the medical status of the infant
- Lying about the infant’s life and stating the infant could be saved with the proper information
While these coercive tactics are specific to one case, they outline how deception in interrogation must be used ethically and tactfully.
Employing Other Interrogation Tactics
While some forms of deception during an interrogation are deemed legal, have low ethical consequences, and can be used to help bring a guilty party to charges, it is wise to always understand all interrogation methods.
Interview and interrogation training by professionals like Law-Tech helps law enforcement officials understand different interrogation methods. Learning the “why” behind statements, how to detect truths, how to pose questions, and the use of active listening and response to engage with a suspect and get the truth from all parties aids in interrogation tactics and upholding those conversations in court.
Get interrogation training and other law enforcement training by scheduling personalized training, where we come to you. Get answers to all of your questions about interviews and interrogations, from professionals with a combined 80+ years of experience.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is deception in interrogation techniques?
Deception in interrogation is misleading a suspect with statements of evidence that law enforcement does not really have, such as revealing alleged confessions from other suspects or parties involved, or altering the severity of the situation they are in.
Is it legal for law enforcement to use deception during interrogations?
Law enforcement is legally allowed to use some forms of deception during an interrogation. These must not infringe on the suspect’s rights, mislead them about the leniency of the consequences, or take advantage of vulnerable defendants (ie, juveniles). In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the use of misrepresenting evidence to the subject in Frazier v. Cupp (394 U.S. 731).
How does deception affect the reliability of confessions?
When used legally and appropriately, deception during an interrogation does not affect the reliability of a confession. However, vulnerable parties may be suspected of giving a false confession that may be questioned in court. Deception that is abused may also be found to render a confession inadmissible.
What are the ethical concerns surrounding the use of deception in interrogations?
Law enforcement should be aware of the ethical concerns surrounding deception and, primarily if it will alter a jury’s view of how a confession was obtained. A jury must have faith in law enforcement, and overuse of deception may cause them to question the case.
How do courts view confessions obtained through deceptive interrogation methods?
Judges and a jury will consider how much deception was used to obtain a confession, what evidence there is to support the charge, and the vulnerable state of the suspect at the time the confession was given. In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the use of misrepresenting evidence to the subject in Frazier v. Cupp (394 U.S. 731).
Disclaimer: Law-Tech Consultants, LLC is not a law firm and as such, does not offer legal advice. It is recommended that law enforcement seek counsel from their appropriate legal representative to better understand the limitations in employing deception in interviews and interrogations.
