I’ve noticed that while watching “The First 48” the detectives do occasionally lie to the “witness” or “suspect” to get information. But what I haven’t ever seen them do is lie about having witnesses against them committing the crime.
I know police can and do lie often in interrogations, but everytime they told the suspect that they had a witness against them, they really did have one. So it got me thinking, can they lie about having witnesses against you in a crime to procure information?
Absolutely.
Police Officer Truthfulness and the Brady Decision. See ‘Lies Justified by Investigative Necessity’.
Interesting link, thanks.
Once the car I was in was pulled over. One of my friends was of Mexican descent–though it happens he was in fact culturally as white as they come, having been raised by white adoptive parents from infancy–and the officer spent a long time questioning him, away from the rest of us. He also asked us a few questions. And then he went back to our Mexican(ish) friend and (it is reported) started telling him how we had all “ratted him out” and that he’d better tell where he was keeping the drugs hidden in the car etc. This was, to be clear, a bald faced lie. To be even clearer, there was nothing to rat him out about.
That’s the only bad encounter I’ve had with a police officer but it was enough. I now know not to believe (or anyway, to discount the reliability of) any officer who tells me my co-conspirators have turned against me–even if we are all in fact guilty of whatever he’s accusing us of! Slippery slope indeed.
-FrL-
I suppose the ability to suppress/discard this misinformation on the part of a police officer in court is directly proportional to your income.
However, one should note that the DA is not only not allowed to lie, he is also supposed to tell you if he has found any evidence that casts doubt on your guilt.
The fact that the police are pretty much allowed to lie their asses off is yet another rason why you only say two things after being read your rights “I want to speak to my/an attorney. 2 Am I free to go?”. When they say they have a video of you doing it or your buddy has ratted you out or it’s a one time deal, or all they want is your cooperation- “*I want to speak to my/an attorney. 2 Am I free to go?”
*
When they say “well lawyering up makes you look guilty”= “I want to speak to my/an attorney. 2 Am I free to go?”.
IANAL, but this is what the ACLU suggests, and same with both my judge freinds.
Word to Ya Mutha.
/Vanilla Ice
How about this: The officer has someone in the interrogation room for hours and he just isn’t cracking. He has let slip that he’s married. Can the officer say something like “Your wife can’t last much longer. Your wife has to pee, but it all depends on you.” to loosen the guy’s tongue if his wife really isn’t in custody?
No cite, sorry, but I have read accounts where a police officer told a suspect that the victim had recovered from an assault and that by copping to it the suspect would only be exposed to a minor charge. The officer had known all along that the victim had in fact died of his injuries, and the suspect confessed to a capital crime. It was completely legal and the confession was admissable.
Suppose the suspect had a lawyer in this case. Could the police have told the same lie to the lawyer?
And right there mrAru would start laughing his ass off. If refused permission to go pee, I WILL pee right where I am sitting. I would even crap my pants to get the point across. It does happen to actually be illegal in the US to refuse a subject to go to the bathroom, or access to certain classes of meds [insulin or diabetic control meds, epilepsy control meds and I cant remember the others just off hand.]
All that ploy would get the cop is laughter.
I went on a police ridealong several years ago. It was an amazing learning experience that I would recommend to everyone.
At one point a woman called in a fake prescription for Vicadin to a Rite Aid. When she showed up to pick it up, the pharmacist called the cops. The cop told her that he had the phone call on tape and they would do a voice recognition to prove that it was her calling in pretending to be a doctor’s office. It was total bullshit but it got her to confess. She was on probation and we took her straight to jail.
As we were driving away the conversation went like this:
Me: Not to be a smartass but you just totally lied to her.
Cop: Yep.
Me: You can do that and it won’t be thrown out of court?
Cop: We can lie all we want. Otherwise there could never be undercover work. Once they’re under arrest, we have to tell the truth but until then, all bets are off.
Me: Well then why would any one talk to a cop if they’re being questioned?
Cop: Because they’re stupid.
There’s a Georgia case that is almost identical to this with a different outcome. The defendant was told that his victim was in the hospital recovering, when he had in fact died. Defendant then admitted to beating the snot out of the victim, and he was charged with murder. The GA Supreme Court reversed the conviction based upon the improperly admitted confession. Police are still allowed to lie up to a point, but in that case (I think it was Ritter v. State) the Court drew the line at where it had to stop.
As a slight hijack, I have had juries acquit clients who confessed, because the police lied to the client during the interrogation. Even if the judge finds the confession to be admissible, the jury has to find that it was “freely and voluntarily” given before they can consider it in their deliberations. They don’t like it when police lie, regardless of their motives.
Hey, I found my cite. Google for People v. Groleau, 44 Ill. App. 3d 807 358 N.E.2d 1192 (1976). The only article I found requires registration and a fee, but it pops up.
Once you say "“I want to speak to my/an attorney. 2 Am I free to go?” they can;t continue to interrogate you either.
The legal standard is if the ruse might trick an innocent person to confess. So you may tell a rape suspect the victim had some dreadful venereal disease. An innocent man would not care. You may not tell him that a lynch mob outside will kill him if he does not confess.
As others have said, we can lie up to a point. The court will draw a line at anything that “shocks the conscience”. In other words, bald-faced lies are OK, but you can’t tell someone truly horrible or shocking. The court gets to decide what is shocking, so a wise officer will keep to simpler fare. I think suggesting that we’re torturing the suspect’s wife would cross that line.
You also have to know the right lies to tell. If you claim to have witnesses when the suspect would know no one saw them commit the crime, then he knows that you’re lying and you will never fool him again. If you claim to have fingerprints but the suspect knew he was wearing gloves the whole time, you’ve lost again.
So, you have to be careful with what you say. One of my favorite ruses - I had a suspect in a burglary, but I had recovered leather gloves at the scene so I knew he wouldn’t fall for saying he left prints at the house. So I told him I cut the gloves open and lifted his prints from the inside of the fingers. He believed me and confessed.
For what it’s worth, DrDeth is right. Lawyering up is the only smart thing to do. I am constantly amazed at how many people don’t do that and end up giving me a confession.
So, what would stop someone who was actually innocent from lawyering up?
I believe that the no shit first thing I would do innocent or guilty would be to lawyer up. Oddly enough, having trained as a paralegal, I know exactly how much I don’t know … and would want someone in there that is on my side.
Nothing would (or should) stop you from lawyering up in a case of innocence. I would certainly do so, were I innocent or guilty. Maybe it is the cost of an attorney that has some people hesitating when they know they are innocent of the crime.
It strikes me that a police officer’s lies could be used pretty effectively on cross-examination.
For example, suppose that the burglar in Thalion’s example doesn’t confess and is charged with burglary. At trial, the defendant’s attorney could ask something like
“Now sir, isn’t it true that at one point, you stated that you recovered my client’s fingerprints from gloves found at the crime scene when you knew full well that no fingerprints were found at all?”
And in closing, the attorney could say something like:
“Ladies and gentleman, the evidence shows that the prosecution’s witness will say and do anything in order to secure a conviction against my client. But notwithstanding their vicious, nasty lies, my client never waivered in maintaining his innocence.”