Not that I think this happens. I’m working on a science fiction story that has the specter of this as part of the premise. So, what legal statutes preclude a police officer drugging a suspect to exact a confession?
Confessions (at least in the US) given under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol are often considered to be inadmissible in court. So, even if drugging were legal, precedent has already been set where confessions made under the influence may not be admissible.
Setting aside the legal and ethical problems, there is also the fact that drugging people just doesn’t work. Sodium pentothal, commonly portrayed in Hollywood as a ‘truth serum,’ is in fact an anesthetic. You are just as likely to get more lies or just plain gibberish than any useful information.
Well, I would point out that the OP refers to a science fiction story. Identifyign the “legal statutes” that regulate interviewing of prisoners requires us to make some assumptions about where the story is set. If it’s set in a fictional version of the US, but one in which the present US constitution applies, the fifth and fourteenth amendments look right. If it’s set anywhere else, then all bets are off as regards identifying particular statutes. But it’s generally true that democracies, or countries which aspire to be democracies, have laws prohibiting the police from assaulting people to obtain confessions, and it’s generally true in those countries that forcibly drugging someone is an assault.
Can a ‘truth serum’ (irrespective of its efficacy) be voluntarily taken? I believe most (all?) states do no allow polygraph results to be entered into evidence. This does not limit the police from administering tests (real or fake) during their investigation.
If so, would you speculate whether a resulting confession would be admissible? (Assume the ingestion/confession occurred after the suspect voluntarily and knowingly abdicated his right to an attorney.)
If not, or if a prosecutor declines to use the information, would it’s ‘fruit’ be admissible?
(E.g. while intoxicated, a suspect says that he killed someone and hid the gun in his garden. The police dig up the gun, it’s a match to the bullet and has the the suspect’s fingerprints on it. Would the gun be admissible?)
Slight correction. The 14th amendment opens the door to selective incorporation where, one by one, and on a case by case basis, the US Supreme Court considers which previous rights were intended to be incorporated by the 14th amendment. Virtually everything is.
This wasn’t my experience. I often tried to arrange things so I could question an assault victim after he had been given some pain medication. I found they were a lot more likely to give up the identity of their assailant if they were feeling mellow.
Seriously? Google 14th Amendment Voluntariness and start educating yourself. Hate to tell you this, but the Constitution regulates a lot of things that are not mentioned in the text. I’ll forego the usual example (abortion) and just ask you to point out where in the 5th Amendment I can find the Miranda warnings?
Maybe I don’t understand you. The right to remain silent is in the Fifth here -
That’s also where you get the right to not answer questions, and the source of the warning that whatever you say might be used against you. The right to an attorney comes from the clause in the Sixth that says citizens are entitled to