Honestly, this has been an issue I have had a great deal of trouble with the past year. Prior to last September, I had always thought of law enforcement in general as the “good guys.” However, after personally being interviewed by a major crimes detective and an ATF special agent and later, informally talking to two beat cops (while my apartment was being searched), I was left astounded by how lying and prevarication are routine police tactics. They outright lied about information they “had” on me, tried to convince that a private firearms sale is illegal without an FFL, and basically tried to checkmate me by trying to make me admit to lesser things (one example: one of the patrol cops asked me if I made a profit on the sale in question which, if I had made more than the gun was “worth,” could put me up for dealing firearms without a license).
I’m not at all talking about undercover law enforcement lying to preserve their immediate safety or the safety of others. In my opinion, lying in situations like that is perfectly ethical. But I cannot justify the behavior of the law enforcement personnel I spoke to that day with the behavior of anyone who I could consider ethical and upstanding. I suppose the counterpoint to this is the notion that the ends justifies the means, but not only do I not buy that, I also imagine that they use these techniques on the innocent at least as often as the guilty. So, a few questions:
[ol]
[li]Are these sorts of interviewing techniques ethical?[/li][li]Is there any other justification for lying and prevaricating beyond the ends justifying the means?[/li][li]If law enforcement employs unethical interview techniques when dealing with suspects, how should this affect society’s view of law enforcement as a career?[/li][/ol]
Obviously, I currently don’t believe that lying to and misleading suspects is ethical. It makes me question the motivations of anyone who becomes a law enforcement officer. Not only will I never again speak to the police without a lawyer, I don’t think I would ever want any law enforcement personnel as friends or relatives.
Well . . . the legality of police lying to suspects is well-established. As for ethics . . .
I’d have to say that as much as I hate lying, I don’t have a big problem with lying to a criminal to make him confess–telling him that his accomplices have already given him up, for example, when they actually haven’t. His rights haven’t been violated, and if tricking a suspect is wrong then all undercover work is also wrong, since that’s what it amounts to, right?
But I do worry about the possibility that police could convince a person to plead guilty to something he’s not really guilty of. I particularly don’t like the idea of police lying about what is illegal as opposed to what evidence they have. Do you think the law enforcement agents you encountered were doing this? If they make a habit of it, they may end up usurping the powers of the legislature.
I think our system of law enforcement works best if law-abiding people cultivate a healthy suspicion of authority.
Edited to add: you are wise never to speak to police without a lawyer, at least if you think there’s any chance you may be a suspect.
Legally, I know these sorts of tactics are okay. And while I agree with you that a healthy suspicion of law enforcement is great, I don’t see it often. It seems like we afford the police too much respect nowadays.
The ATF agent absolutely did this. Selling a firearm privately without an FFL is not illegal until you make a business out of it.
For some reason, I couldn’t find this video linked any better than this, Don't Talk to Police - Google Search , but if you watch both “Don’t Talk to Police” videos at the top, they make a compelling case for not talking to them, even if you don’t think you could be a suspect. I didn’t, which is why I talked to them in my situation.
I’ve been interviewed/questioned by law enforcement agencies of one type or another in hree countries. In all cases, I knew with absolute certainty that I had not commited the crime in question (well, onnce was a border detainment and I don;t think they really knew what I might have “done”, they just didn’t like the way I looked (or smelled o r something).
In all three cases I became very nervous and found myself having to hold back on a strong desire to babble our as much information as I could in order to demonstrate my innocence. the most intimidating were the German polizei. The most infuriating (and personally insulting) were the US Army military Police (who also brought in my commanding officer, but someohow managed to exclude him when admitting that they had caught the right guy and I was not involved.) The Canadian Border Patrol, byt contrast, was actually the most “polite”, though they also had the least possible reason to be interested in me. (The other two cases were a mistaken identification and an attempt to intimidate me into providing information about a freind - information they never bothered to just ask me for up front.)
I still have a rgeat deal of respect for the job of law enforcement, but I also have an intimate understanding that the people who do that job are not necessarily nice people, and when they come knocking on ym door they absolutely do not have my best interests at heart. I don’t think that is unethical on their part. I think I would be a fool to take my legal advice from a man whose vested interests might be clearly opposed to my own.
Cops have a tough job, and I respect the sacrifices they are willing to make in order to secure and protect a civil society. But unless I’ve pulled over to ask for directions, I dont’ believe a word one of them says to me.
I saw a case on one of those crime shows where a high school kid was coerced into admitting that he killed his sister. The cops lied to him about the evidence they said they had…and the kid, being 15 yrs old or so at the time, assumed they were telling the truth. Long story short, he admitted to killing his sister. Only problem was, he didn’t do it, someone else did.
The same thing happened to the father of a young girl who went missing (6 yr old Michelle Dorr). The cops questioned the father and ultimately lied to him about evidence they had against him. FInally the father confessed to killing his child. But it turned out that the child was abducted and killed by serial killer Haddon Clark.
That’s the problem with allowing cops to lie to suspects. But if they couldn’t do this, there would probably be a lot more unsolved crimes.
This only makes me wonder how many “solved” cases have resulted in the imprisonment (or even execution) of the wrong guy due to a coerced confession. Sure, the number than is smaller than those who were rightfully convicted, but how much collateral damage is acceptable?
The gross discrepancy in power between an armed LEO and the object of his attention is but one of the many reasons I disfavor the recent trend towards expanding what are permissable searches, and the extent to which an individual is required to cooperate with police absent evidence of wrongdoing.
For quite some time the prevailing attitude has been “If you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, and if you have done something wrong then you deserve whatever you get.”
There is a very simple solution to this; so simple, in fact, that the police are required to offer it before any detention or interrogation: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
As a lawyer friend of mine describes, police were worried that the warning resulting from the Miranda v. Arizona decision would result in criminals clamming up. Curiously (or perhaps not) this is not the case; most suspects fail to “lawyer up” and spill their guts, and Miranda generally protects the the information obtained by such a matter. The solution for you, dear readers, is if you are being questioned by police and accused or implied of having committed a crime to say, “I wish to speak to my lawyer before answering this question,” and ignoring any claims that doing so implies guilt.
As for the specific question of the o.p., i.e. whether it is ethical for police to lie in interrogations: we are taught from childhood that lying is bad, and that honest people don’t lie. On the other hand, the majority of people police deal with in this fashion are lying or being evasive; asking open, honest questions is going to offer up nothing. Being able to tell a suspect, “We have your fingerprints on the gun,” even when no clear prints are obtainable may cause the suspect to admit legitimate guilt where he or she would otherwise be able to walk away. Is it more ethical to lie and obtain a valid confession, or be truthful and let a subject that police strongly suspect of the crime to walk free?
There are, of course, police who will abuse this to get a confession out of the subject whether valid or not; running along this line and pressuring suspects to answer means that you’ll sometimes get the answer you want, not the answer that is right. The police, of course, are not tasked with deciding guilt, but collecting evidence, and it is up to the judicial process to determine the value of that evidence. However, when police present a theory that excludes exculpatory evidence or forces admissions of guilt that are plausible but untrue, it is very easy for the process to become twisted.
Police must mirandize a suspect during custodial interrogation. If the police are merely in your house asking questions, there is no need to mirandize. Similarly, the police can tell you lies all they want when you are in custody without a miranda warning, as long as the statements aren’t crafted to elicit a response.
Moreover, the “requirement,” is not a legal requirement. It is typically a departmental order. All the law does is exclude evidence gained from unmirandized interrogations. But inclusion of evidence is not the only harm that can come from them, obviously. In the example of plea deals, the issue doesn’t arise.
This didn’t apply in any of my cases, though whether I was officially taken into custody for merely “temporarily detained” isn’t a question I can answer. I know that I did not feel at liberty to leave whenever I might choose. Then again, noe of my cases were governed by US Criminal Case law.
Your post seems to be implying that, provided a subject isn’t being formally detained, that they have no Miranda rights. By proxy, then do they lose the right to remain silent? Where do individual rights and investigative obstruction intersect?
It is true that Miranda rights do not attach until one is in custody. The goal was to prevent coercive interrogation, and the presumption is that one cannot be coerced when one is free to leave.
However, what Miranda does–among other things–is force the police to *tell *you that you have a right not to answer questions which will incriminate you. You always have that right according to the Fifth Amendment, you just don’t always have to be informed of it.
I don’t know what the state of the law is surrounding obstruction of justice. I doubt that one ever has a legal obligation to provide information to the police, except in a few circumscribed circumstances (child abuse reporting, etc.).
In my opinion, stuff like the Reid technique is not at all ethical. There’s a reason that in some countries they’re not allowed to use it on underage suspects. It seems not at all uncommon for vulnerable people to falsely confess to charges with this kind of interrogation. I don’t know what the solution is, I can’t see the Reid technique being outlawed in this country, but it seems in line with a general stress that is put on closing cases rather than making sure they get the right person.