Essential to investigations are interviews and interrogations. An Interview is merely the communication between two or more people, designed to elicit information that the speaker is believed to have knowledge about. Most human beings engage in some type of informal interview each waking hour of every day. Law enforcement uses interviews simultaneously with knowledge of events and criminal behavior to determine the validity or truthfulness. As such, police officers will ask specific questions when someone is reporting a crime or witness to an incident. Purposefully, the questions may lead to suspicions about the nature of the crime or the involvement of others. This interview process makes its way into the report the officer prepares and often determines the depth and scope of the investigation. Although a police interview is interrogatory in nature, it is normally unstructured and allows for two way communication.
Interrogations are more than just interviews when someone is in custody. Interrogations are a set approach to answer questions and elicit a response determining guilt or conspiracy in a crime; this is normally accomplished by use of a monologue presuming guilt exists. Interrogations have evolved in police work in the last half of the 20th century in the U.S. to reflect the values and principles of a democratic and free society upholding the constitution. Notably, the ‘Miranda Warning’ instituted as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1966 decision of Miranda v. Arizona affected how all law enforcement officers conduct interrogations without violating an individual’s 5th amendment rights. The warning was designed to afford the accused an attorney, even if they could not afford an attorney, before making a statement that could be used against them in court. Even so, many interrogations that are professionally conducted result in confessions of a person’s guilt, without invoking their 5th amendment right. So what are the basic principles to a professional interrogation? Here are some key basics using both the Reid 9 step technique, common sense, and some old cop experiences.
The first phase is to place the suspect in a well-lighted confined room, with no windows, and no access to a thermostat or light switch. Since he/she is in custody, apply leg iron restraints to the floor, or keep them in handcuffs. You need to psychologically reinforce to the suspect the gravity of their situation through the loss of personal freedoms. Close the door and view from a two way mirror or video feed. The entire length of the interrogation should be videotaped with no lapse in time or erasures. Keep the suspect in the room for up to an hour with no outside contact. When you do enter, immediately apologize for inconveniencing them. Explain that you just have a few preliminary questions about the crime and offer them a restroom break and something to drink. Most guilty suspects will invariably ask for both. I recall a detective in our bureau who offered a cheeseburger to a known burglar while he was conducting this phase of the interrogation, and then cleaned up over 30 burglaries in the area within the next hour with the burglar’s confession.
Next you have to build rapport. There is no need to be confrontational at this stage unless you’re applying the old good cop/bad cop routine from the start. Rather, one investigator can do this stage without other involvement. Finding commonality with the suspect in some key elements of not who they really are but who they want us to believe they are. You have to establish your willingness to listen and understand their problems. This might be as simple as identifying with the region in which they live, their legitimate occupation, or the car that they drive. Be certain to center on the important things in life, like family, respect, and ‘doing the right thing’. The goal is to have them see you as someone they can relate to, even if you are there to determine the truth. You must avail yourself to their ‘spin’ of the truth as you are setting the table for this to happen.
Like the Reid Technique, a confrontation is initiated with the accusation of a crime being committed by the suspect. This confrontation is framed solely as a ‘just the facts’ attitude and is non judgemental. Remember, you are presenting yourself as someone who can help them with this problem. In these early stages, a denial from the suspect is almost but certain. Avert any denials immediately made by the suspect as he/she may feel ‘locked in’ later and be forced to admit that they told a lie. Rather, tell the suspect that you want them to hear the facts first and they will have an opportunity soon to explain. For this reason, a second interrogator is not recommended until the final steps of this process.
Next reinforce throughout the interrogation a moral dilemma. This can be done in a number of ways, from soliciting victim empathy to identifying with the suspect’s hardships. The goal in this stage is to portray yourself as a caring human being and reluctant to cause harm to anyone involved. This is tempered with the suspect’s ability to identify with you, your job, and your ability to help him in this situation. You can explain this in what Reid identifies as a ‘theme’. Proposing ‘what ifs’ on the recovery of evidence, what co-conspirators are saying, eyewitness accounts, the lack of cooperation, the mercy of the court, and similar situations that the suspect may have not considered. Fall back on the earlier conversation involving family, respect, and ‘doing the right thing’. I have found it better and more credible to be truthful in developing these themes using hypotheticals rather that creating a lie that I have to maintain and remember. This is important when the videotaped interrogation is brought to trial.
Next, watch for nonverbal cues to determine if the suspect is lying about the questions they are being afforded. It may be a simple looking left and away or a scratch of the nose, or tapping of the foot. These are clues that a lie is being told, often without the suspect being conscience of the action. A videotape or second investigator behind the mirror or review of the video feed can be helpful. During one such interrogation, I learned from my partner that the robbery suspect would lean forward and rub his forehead each time we spoke about his six year old son. As I returned to the room, I focused in on his family more and having respect for ‘doing the right thing’ for his son. I was able get his admission to the robbery soon thereafter.
At the next stage, assess the likelihood of getting a logical reason for the person being involved in the crime. Develop scenarios that make it difficult to provide an answer with deniability. For example: ‘Did you want to stop at any point while you were robbing that man?’ or ‘Was it you or the guy you were with that came up with the idea to burglarize the drug store?’ Continuing with the theme, offer plausible justifications in question form such as,’ You only wanted to scare him with the gun?’, or ‘You were just being generous to the girl, it wasn’t money for sex?’. Essentially what we need at this stage is an admission of being involved in the crime. When investigating a suspect for a reported sex crime involving a child, I offered him the chance to tell his side of the story, since as I pointed out ‘children can make up stories’. He soon wrote a confession explaining in detail how his hand slipped while sleeping and removed the young girl’s panties and woke after dreaming of fondling the child. Later, his defense attorney pled guilty to his case in return for a three year sentence.
If the suspect isn’t ready to offer an admission, explain that you have to ‘talk this over’ with your partner and/or check on an evidence report and leave the room. Allow some time to pass, as this creates those previously discussed scenarios and responses to build within the suspect. Watching from the video feed or two way mirror may give clues on how the suspect will react when you enter the room again.
Adding the second investigator to the interrogation now changes the dynamic, at this point you can switch to the good cop/bad cop routine, with the first investigator being the good cop; have the second brow beat the suspect on their faults, the evidence, and the lack of cooperation with investigators. Now is the time to offer two alternatives to the events, one of which being a more moralistic response and can be corroborated in some manner. Make this as a proposition and ‘best offer’ to the suspect. Again reinforce the family, respect, ‘doing the right thing’ theme. Keep at it if denial persists, return to the previous stage to offer plausible justifications. Avoid restroom or smoke breaks since this can ruin the likelihood of obtaining the confession. Once committed, the suspect agrees to the best option and provides a confession to the crime.
In the last step, have the suspect repeat the confession in front of a third person and document the confession in writing with their signature, then log the videotape recording as evidence with a second copy for your file.
Security Issues of Today 
Pingback: Influencing Ourselves - Mutual Spiritual Affinity