Monday, May 01, 2006
Recording Police Interviews and Interrogations
What do you think about recording police interviews and interrogations? Legislation throughout the United States is beginning to require some law enforcement agencies to document through video and/or audio recording any custodial interviews. Several police departments have been employing this practice already, and many others are in the beginning stages of developing such programs. What is your experience and opinion with recording interviews and interrogations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There are definately some benefits, as well as potential problems, regarding video and/or audio recording of interviews.
Some of the benefits include, as Jim said, reducing claims by the defense that coercive tactics were used to obtain a confession, or that the defendant was not advised of their constitutional rights, or that they requested an attorney but were denied one by the police, etc. Also, people speak several times faster than they can write, so a lot of what is said might be missed, which may be significant, even with the best note-taking. We would be able to review exactly what was said and take a critical view of the language as well as the non-verbal behavior of the individual during the interview. It also affords us the opportunity to critique ourselves for improvement by reviewing the interview thoroughly, how we worded questions, how our demeanor impacted the individual, what could we have done differently, etc.
Some potential problems may be the expense and maintenance of the PROPER equipment, as well as possible malfunctions. Also, if the subject knows they are being recorded, which may be required within some jurisdictions, they may refuse to talk or even "play-up" to the camera. One major issue would be the transcription of any recorded interviews (if necessary) which is very time-consuming, and unless you have dedicated staff doing this, it can be a HUGE drain on your time as the investigator.
This is just some initial thoughts on this. I do know that many jurisdictions have transitioned to some form of video/audio documentation, and the vast majority like it better.
I agree that the professional interviewer has nothing to hide and documenting the interview will be a benefit, possibly avoiding the defense claiming the confession was coerced or the defendant stating "I didn't say that".
I am a proponent of audio taping interviews. I do not have anything against video taping an interview either, but I do not see the need nor expense of this. As Wes Clark wrote, "some potential problems may be the expense and maintenance of the PROPER equipment, as well as possible malfunctions."
Regarding note-taking, I have always been of the opinion that note-taking during an interview of a suspect can be more distracting to the interviewer, whether he/she is taking the notes or having a secondary take the notes and, more importantly, on the mind of the subject being interviewed. Remember, the subject is watching what is going on. Note-taking, (and lets face it, not too many LE officers are trained, or adept at note-taking for that matter, and I'm being generous on this statement) is certainly high on the conscience of the subject.
Regarding audio taping, I believe that due to the stress of a criminal interview the subject will more than likely forget he is being taped, especially if the interviewer were to use a well placed recording device, hidden or in plain sight (and the size can be rather small). Taping eliminates the pen moving on paper, pad moving, and paper turning etc... Then there is the court-room attacks on the accuracy of LE note-taking among other things, a topic for another time.
I see no downfall to the use of audio recording of criminal interviews, on the contrary, I think that it encourages LE officers to act within the constraints of the law and to mitigate possible attacks on confessions and admissions and it can have the added benefit of helping us to learn to be better interviewers. I would venture to guess that audio recorded interviews have less probability of being tossed than non-audio taped interviews, just a guess.
Although I am no longer a sworn law enforcement officer, I understand what my two previous "posters" have said. The saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" is correct in evidentiary applications. Who said what, who did what, can not be disputed in the face of video evidence. Mant, many cases have hinged upon that evidence. On the other side, let me say this. I video tape ALL my interrogations, Interviews, and Polygraph Examinations. It keeps everyone "honest". I know I am being recorded right along with the suspect. Sometimes I get loose in the mouth and use a few four letter words trying to drive a point home to a suspect who normally uses that type of language, and I'm not embarassed if someone else views that tape. I have ajob to do- find out the TRUTH. Not, convince as suspect to confess because he has a big head, or he has been "a person of interest".
We should all be ater he TRUTH, no matter where it leads. If you have a problem with making a permanent record of your efforts in the interogation room, perhaps there is something you are doing wrong? Moreover, we ALL could stand a little oversight from time to time. Thjis keeps us from forming "bad habits", that will get our cases "kicked to the curb" by the poweers that be. And we all know how we hate that...
I think video and audio taping of Police interviews and interrogations and only serve to "keep us Holy" and if anything, show others exactly how tough many of these nut are to crack and what we have to do to crack them!
Mike
internal-affairs@comcast.net
Post a Comment