INTRODUCTION
Law enforcement can only receive so much information from the crime scene itself and any surveillance measures. Thus, a case is built also on in-depth conversations with witnesses, friends, family, and suspects. Criminal justice professionals must be adept at extracting information from those involved in a crime while also abiding by legal standards.
You may be familiar with the interrogation strategy of “good cop, bad cop” and the use of deceptive tactics (e.g., “Your buddy in the next room is telling us a different story”) from police procedurals you have seen on TV. In reality, interrogations require a plan, a wide range of skills, and the ability to assess and match a suspect’s demeanor—and are much more nuanced than what is shown in a 1-hour fictional program.
This week, you explore the skills and laws associated with interviews and interrogations while also evaluating how certain characteristics affect the interrogator and the suspect.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students will:
Differentiate between an interview and an interrogation
Analyze legal requirements when conducting an interview or interrogation
Evaluate the intended effects of interrogation characteristics on the interrogator and suspect
dentify terminology related to crime scene evidence, surveillance, and interview and interrogation
INTERVIEW OR INTERROGATION?
While an interview and an interrogation may seem like two distinct and separate activities, the line between them can be blurry at times due to the nature of police work and interactions with suspects. One can bleed into the other.
Consider the following scenario:
An individual is arrested on suspicion of identity theft. The arresting officer reads the suspect her Miranda rights, and she requests a lawyer and invokes silence. However, while being transported to jail, the suspect mutters while staring out the window, “I never really looked like that chick anyway.” The statement then leads to a confession.
In this Discussion, you analyze circumstances where an interview may become an interrogation and the actions and laws associated with that transition.
Post a response to the following:
Explain when an interview becomes an interrogation and how the interviewer/interrogator would proceed differently based on this transition.
In reference to the scenario described above, can a suspect “un-invoke” Miranda? Can a conversation that is not an interrogation (excited utterance) lead to a confession?
Required Readings
Brandl, S. (2018). Criminal investigation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Chapter 6, “Interviews and Eyewitness Identifications Download Interviews and Eyewitness Identifications” (pp. 142–177)
Criminal Investigation, 4th Edition by Brandl, S. Copyright 2018 by Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc. via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Brandl, S. (2018). Criminal investigation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Chapter 7, “Interrogations and Confessions Download Interrogations and Confessions” (pp. 178–211)
Criminal Investigation, 4th Edition by Brandl, S. Copyright 2018 by Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc. via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). 18 U.S. Code § 3501. Admissibility of confessions Links to an external site.. Retrieved March 30, 2019, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501
Taylor, B. (2015). You have the right to be confused! Understanding Miranda after 50 years Links to an external site.. Pace Law Review, 36(1), 158–214.
Cicchini, M. D. (2012). The new Miranda warning Links to an external site.. SMU Law Review, 65(4), 911–941.
ANSWERS
An interview becomes an interrogation when the interviewer shifts from a conversational and non-accusatory approach to a more confrontational and accusatory one, with the goal of obtaining a confession from the suspect. In an interrogation, the interviewer may use a variety of tactics, such as deception, good cop/bad cop, or psychological manipulation, in order to extract a confession.
In reference to the scenario described above, can a suspect “un-invoke” Miranda? Can a conversation that is not an interrogation (excited utterance) lead to a confession?
In the scenario described above, the suspect’s statement while being transported to jail could be considered an excited utterance, which is a type of exception to the Miranda rule. An excited utterance is a spontaneous statement made by a person in response to a startling event or condition, without the opportunity to reflect or fabricate. In this case, the suspect’s statement could be considered an excited utterance because it was made in response to the arrest and transport to jail, and there was no opportunity for the suspect to reflect or fabricate.
However, it is unclear from the scenario whether the statement led to a confession. If the statement did lead to a confession, it would be important for the interrogator to carefully evaluate the circumstances surrounding the statement and the confession, in order to determine whether they were voluntary and not the result of coercion or deception. If the statement and confession were determined to be voluntary, they could be used as evidence in court.
It is also unclear from the scenario whether the suspect “un-invoked” her Miranda rights. If the suspect did request a lawyer and invoke silence, the interrogator would not be able to continue the interrogation unless the suspect waived her Miranda rights. A suspect can waive their Miranda rights by voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently agreeing to answer questions without the presence of a lawyer. In the scenario described above, it is not clear whether the suspect waived her Miranda rights, so it is not clear whether the interrogator could proceed with the interrogation.
Guaranteed A+Stop Stressing. Your Academic Success is Guaranteed.
Domyassignment is your direct route to higher grades. Thousands of students trust our PhD-level experts to deliver 100% original, custom-written papers—from tough essays to massive dissertations.
