About fifteen years ago a few of my buddies and me went to Niagara Falls for a week during the summer. The customs agent asked routine questions about citizenship, where you are coming from, etc., and we answered them all honestly. Then he said, “So, you all just work in Buffalo and are coming over for a few days?”
We thought, “No, you idiot” we just told you the story about how we came from three hundred miles away to drink and carouse at the casino and we are students who don’t work for the summer.
Fast forward to today. I drove my boat trailer from city X to city Y. I got to city Y and did a walk around and my license plate was gone. Sheared off from the rusted metal that held it on.
I called the state police, gave the officer the details and he finished with, “So you were taking your boat from (Lake near city Y) to your home in (city Y) and you lost your plate between there and your home?”
Again, no dumbfuck. I told you the whole story about the travel between cities!
But, the lightbulb went off. Is this a common tactic to see if a seemingly innocent story can be thrown off with a nod of the head and a friendly agreement? As I think about it, it would be a good police tactic because if I was nervous and lying, I would readily agree with what he was saying. Is there any truth to my theory?
Any deviation might be a lie, a lie might mean something nefarious, next thing you know the MPs have locked you up and they found the bombs you were making for your attack on Ft. Hood.
The training is not the stupid questions part, it’s the getting someone to repeat the story more than once and listen for discrepancies. I suppose it’s just easier on the cops to pretend they didn’t listen the first time, but if they can figure out a cleverer way to repeat the questions, I’m sure their training officers would be proud.
Scenario #1: Let’s say you’re telling the cop the truth. He repeats it back and changes a couple of minor facts. You want to convince him of the truth of what you said, so you correct the discrepancies.
Scenario #2: Let’s say you did something wrong and you’re making up some bullshit story you hope the cop will believe. He repeats your story back. He got a few minor details wrong but the important thing is he seems to be buying what you’re saying. So you eagerly nod your head and say “Yes, officer, that’s exactly what happened.”
You see the difference? People telling the truth tend to stick to their story even when it makes them correct the listener. People telling a lie will change their story to whatever the listener appears to want to hear.
On the other hand, it could be Scenario #3: The cop is not really paying any attention to your story at all. He’s just got you talking to distract you while he does something else like looking over your car for anything suspicious or waiting for a report to come back from your license.
Or Scenario #4: The cop is actually a moron who paid no attention the first time, will pay no attention the second time, and is probably paying attention to some chick’s boobs.
LOL! Yeah, this is why I never got caught. They ain’t as smart as they like to think, but if you make them think they are, and that you’re just a silly ol’ girl, why, you can do just about anything.
Yes, LEO’s intentionally ask inane questions. In addition to what’s already been said above, by asking you for your driver’s license and insurance card at the same time they’re asking you if your path home leads you past the old doughnut factory they’re giving you a divided attention test, which is a test of your ability to process one question involving a request for information and a physical dexterity task while simultaneously answering another totally unrelated question. This is usually minimally flustering for the average traffic stop driver, but much more difficult to pull off successfully if the driver is intoxicated, nervous over holding dope, or trying to move a dead body in the trunk.
Many people inject their own thoughts into what they hear. They may just be giving you a chance to correct any misunderstanding. I know in one case a cop quoted me on a traffic report as saying something substatially different than what I recall telling him. I was shaken up and mildly injured at the time, so won’t claim it was a completely one sided misunderstanding.
I passed through a sobriety checkpoint, and the LEO was asking me about whether I had had anything to drink that day while I was still in the process of showing me my driver’s license. I figured that it was a multitasking evaluation. I passed.
It’s also a good tactic when you’re preparing tax returns.
Though I try to at least make sure the questions look intelligent. They key is to get a story that sounds fishy rephrased in some other way that might show inconsistencies, especially when prompted with information that is already inconsistent with what they’ve said. For example, there was the woman who paid her nanny only in cash… no, only in checks… no, through her company’s payroll… And it was 7,000… no, $6,000, no, $14,200.
It’s not just LEOs, either. When I was first training to work at a circulation desk in the first public library I worked at, I was told that the best way to get people to provide an up-to-date address is not to ask “Are you still at 123 Main Street?” but to ask either “What is your current address?” or “Are you still at 234 Main Street?”
