I’ve often watched police dramas and movies in which the suspect is taken into a room, given nothing and asked questions. For some reason, it’s dark and dingy in there, complete with bare lightbulbs, a table, and a single chair.
Hollywood aside, what is it like to be interrogated? Can it do damage to the interrogatee after a certain time? And is it really at all like how it is in the movies?
Websites would really help, and Doper answers are welcome, especially from those in the field.
And Reeder’s link is why to ALWAYS have legal counsel present when being questioned by the police. And most likely legal counsel will say don’t even consider letting the police interrogate you. There is no upside to talking with the police unless beforehand you have cut some sort of deal with them.
LOL, enjoyed the article on why one should have a lawyer present…
What is most stunning is the ease with which they are able to intimidate people to talk to them and incriminate themselves. They do this through fear (of being arrested and charged), threats (subetly made with mention of jail time) and outright lying (about what evidence they have against you already). Of these, lies are the most problematic. They will often state that they have you on video committing a crime, your friends just confessed and said you were involved, that your prints are at the scene or on a weapon, etc
I had a ‘scare’ when I was working as a security guard in a bank operations center. One of the guards had apparently been getting into the commisairy and stealing food - primarily sodas and candy, to the tune of almost $1000 :eek:
The cops came out and questioned a bunch of us, and leaned on us [or me at least] by telling me the whole thing of finger prints, hidden cameras, when the items went missing was while I was working at that particular site [not mentioning that it kept on after I left the site for a different one…and rarely occured on a weekend I worked] They were nonplussed when I laughed at their threat of jail time and told them that 3 hots and a cot on the city would be better than working my butt off for a takehome income after taxes and assorted government highway robbery of $450US/month to pay rent, insurance on my yugo you can stop laughing now. electricity, gas, telephone, laundry and food. Pretty much everything I owned was in a storage locker [just had left a very abusive exfiance.] so it wouldnt have been that big a deal, the locker was paid up for a year. I also pointed out that I was a [at the time] medication control diabetic, and that the items that were stolen were not allowed on my diet, and I didn’t do soda anyway. If I was going to steal something it would be some of that lovely meat that I couldn’t afford to buy for myself…
There have been threads about this subject before. But if you are innocent, is it really a mistake to cooperate with the police? Say your kid is missing. The cops typically suspect family members before they go after anyone else. Are the cops more or less likely to aggressively look for your kid if you say, “I’m not talking–get me a lawyer”? Say you are one of a group of employees working a shift where there has been a theft problem. Everybody is a suspect, but maybe only one person is guility, or maybe nobody’s guilty and the bookkeeping is screwed up. Are you better off saying “I’m not a thief,” or saying “Get me a lawyer”?
I realize that people have been railroaded, but I still would like to believe that the police generally have no reason to frame an innocent person. What do you lose by telling the cops you didn’t do it if you really didn’t?
I was interrogated in the Army when a friend of mine came under investigation for being gay. They used all the techniques described in aruvqan’s post. “Tell us everying, we already know, we have it on videotape, undercover witnesses, you’re friends blabbed, if you hold back we’re going to think you’re guilty, you’re going to prison,” etc., etc. I wasn’t given the option of having a lawyer present, and yes, ridealong what you say can be used against you or your friends even if you and they have “done nothing wrong.” Don’t buy that part about “if you’ve got nothing to hide, why aren’t you willing to talk to us” baloney. You don’t know exactly what kind of statement’s they’re trying to get out of you. You may think you’re being honest and helping, but you really may not be.
In such a case, presumably the parent would be reporting the kid missing. And if the parent was innocent, would be volunteering the truth. Only if the police started interrogating the parent in such a way they thought the parent was a suspect was a suspect would the parent need to say “I want a lawyer”. And, if I’m the parent and know the police suspect me of foul play, then I would be certain they would agressively look for the kid. And if they found the kid alive, the kid’s own words would clear me (or, if the kid were kidnapped, etc. the circumstance would.)
It’s hard for me (as a wholesome-looking white guy who’s been able to explain himself out of moviing violations even) to remember, but it’s probably not even a good idea to tell the cops that you’ve just arrived from downtown if they’re asking what you’re doing. You don’t know what’s just happened downtown.
I once found myself in the unenviable position of being interrogated.
The interrogation room was, in fact, quite dimly lit and unkempt. There was a lone, bare lightbulb hanging down. There was a table, with a tape recorder and mic.
There was one chair provided for the interogee and two for the cops (it seems the interrogator always has a superior observing the proceedings).
I was asked beforehand if I would cooperate, and having grown bored of sitting in a holding cell for a significant period of time, I agreed. NEVER DO THAT. DON"T COOPERATE. You won’t have an easier time in court, any promises the cops make are lies.
Apart from no 2 way glass in there, a lot of what you see in movies and TV is pretty close.
From Saturday’s paper :
"City settles in rape arrest
" By Jessica Portner / Mercury News
"The city of Palo Alto on Friday settled a federal lawsuit filed by a man arrested for a brutal nursing home rape who was later exonerated by DNA evidence. … legal line if they use trickery to press for a confession where there is no probable cause to … "
Excerpts from the print edition(on-line requires registration):
“Police homed in on Hernandez because he lived two blocks from…apartment and has an older brother named Edwin–the name engraved on a ring…”
Family shocked, no prior record, age 18. Police “falsely told him they had a videotape and other evidence…Hernandez told police he may have been at the scene but had no memory of the crime and said it didn’t seem like something he would do. ‘I was probably drinking when it happened,’ he said in a video-taped interview…”
In other words, the interrogators convinced him he must have done it. You also hear of them feeding particulars of the crime to a suspect first, and then showing in a later, recorded, interview that he knows about those particulars.
“Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney…said Friday that investigators’ tactics were legitimate…”
In Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets David Simon wrote about how Baltimore homicide detectives work. They offer the suspect the chance to “tell his side of the story” before asserting their rights. They tell him stuff like:
“Once you up and call for that lawyer, son, we can’t do a damn thing for you. . . . The next authority figure to scan your case will be a tie-wearing, three-piece bloodsucker - a no-nonsense prosecutor from the Violent Crimes Unit . . . And God help you then, son . . . . Now’s the time to speak up . . . because once I walk out of this room any chance you have of telling your side of the story is gone and I gotta write it up the way it looks. . . . And it looks right now like first-degree murder.”
Suspects are cajoled to believe that the detectives care about them, that their crime is not really murder, that the detective believes their story and will go in to bat for them. Once the detective has a confession he leaves and with the other squad members openly laughs at the suspects gullibility. The squad had a saying “crime makes you stupid”. It is a very good book about police work and later became the model for the TV series.
A friend of mine works in disability care. A year or two ago he attended a course about the law and handicapped people. He was shown video of people confessing to crimes that they couldn’t have committed. He said that some of the best police interrogators could achieve this with little apparent effort.
People aren’t mentioning the psychological dependence the police try to create to control and manipulate suspects. Usually the police will try to arrest someone in a public place when they least suspect it so they will resist less since they are caught off guard. The interrogation room should have as few diversions as possible to add to this sense of dependence (anything to make the situation as alien as possible is good). Then an interrogator who is nice when you cooperate but extremely abusive mentally/verbally/emotionally when you don’t is usually all you need to make most people cooperate. I don’t think the justice system really respects how easy it is to bully someone out of the same rights we fought hundreds of years as a society to obtain.
One other practical tip: when you ask for a lawyer, as YOU SHOULD ALWAYS DO, your request must be unequivocal.
“I think I should talk to a lawyer now.” Not good enough.
“Maybe I need a lawyer.” Nope.
“I want a lawyer now.” Good.
“I haven’t done anything wrong, and I want to remain silent, and I want my lawyer right now.” Better.
“For the record, I will not and have no intention of discussing anything relating to these or any other criminal matters with any person other than my lawyer, most especially not any person in jail with me. Any inmate or guard coming forward in the future with a ‘jail cell’ confession story purportedly from me is lying. I haven’t done anything wrong, and I want to exercise my right to remain silent, and I want my lawyer right now.” A frequent pleasant dream defense lawyers have, but it never actually happens. 
A friend of mine who was a retailer of not-necessarily-legal substances engaged an extremely prominent Sydney lawyer - so well known that you know anyone he represents is guilty, and the advice that he received was, “If ever you are arrested say absolutely nothing. The more you say the easier you make the job of the police. Do not even protest your innocence - just say ‘Call xxxxxxxxxx’ and leave it at that.”
Perhaps a bit off topic, but does the right to a lawyer apply to interrogation situations as well as actual trial?
I understand you have a right to a court appointed lawyer in actual court. If you were hauled in for interrogation could you demand that a lawyer is provided to you, even if you don’t actually have (or can afford) your own lawyer?
It’s part of your Miranda rights that if you’re arrested you can have a lawyer provided.
True; you have a right to have an attorney present during questioning, IF YOU REQUEST IT, and IF YOU DON’T SURRENDER THAT RIGHT.
And even if you do, you can change your mind. But you MUST request it. Most cops will terminate the interrogation process as soon as you do so, because anything you say AFTER requesting a lawyer can be questioned (and possibly excluded as evidence, depending on circumstance).
The police are not your friends. They are civil employees who are paid to be suspicious and intimidating, and they are not interested in your well being. They are interested in doing their job, and from where they stand, locking you up may well be part of an ordinary day’s work.
As an indication of how effective this is, in Japan, where suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days or more without a lawyer present, the confession rate is 95%. To be honest, I’m surprised it’s that low.
OoOOo I LIKE that…I think I will write it down and memorize it=)
Though some of the other techniques that could possibly be tried on me would not work…make me tired, and i will curl up on the floor and ignore anything except physical abuse…they would have to explain the marks on me when they tried to force me to sit in a chair. I have an iffy hunger reflex [I had an illness and stopped eating for 3 months, all i could keep down was liquids, and now I have to remember to eat=)] so trying to make me hungry enough to want to confess would have my diabetes in a tizzy, and they could then explain that to the judge=) and if they tried to make me uncomfy by refusing to take me to a toilet, I have no problems pissing or crapping on myself…I had a guy tie me up for fun, and when I needed to whizz and he refused [thinking to make me beg] i pissed the bed. I don’t take to coercion well, especially not after suffering an abusive relationship.
LOL, When the feebs were doing a clearance on me once, they asked a friend from high school if I could be coerced into doing something that I normally wouldnt be willing to do, Marc looked at the guy when he stopped laughing and told him that if there was any coercion going on, I would be the one doing it…
Yes. If you are in custodial interrogation – that is, you have been seized and detained, such that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave – then you have the right to an attorney. If you simply encounter a police officer on the street and he asks you questions, and you are free to disregard his questions and go about your business, then you have no particular right to a court-appointed attorney.