# Law enforcement: Drugging during interrogation is prevented by what law(s)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 25, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494 "2014-03-25T01:25:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ArrMatey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrmatey/32/3522_2.png) [@ArrMatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArrMatey)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/1 "2014-03-25T01:25:30Z")
Basically what it says in the title. 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? ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/2 "2014-03-25T01:30:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/3 "2014-03-25T01:35:31Z")
Drugging someone without his consent is generally an assault. You can’t drug him for the purpose of interviewing him for the same reason that you can’t hit him for the purpose of interviewing him. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/4 "2014-03-25T02:22:57Z")
The applicable law is the 14th Amendment. Under that, a confession must be voluntary in order to be admissible. Voluntariness is determined through a totality of the circumstances test. ---
**Author:** ![ArrMatey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrmatey/32/3522_2.png) [@ArrMatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArrMatey)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/5 "2014-03-25T03:03:24Z")
Thank you thank you! (To you all!) Exactly the info I was looking for! ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/6 "2014-03-25T07:41:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/7 "2014-03-25T07:49:36Z")
> [@Doctor\_Who](#): > > The applicable law is the 14th Amendment. Under that, a confession must be voluntary in order to be admissible. Voluntariness is determined through a totality of the circumstances test. Actually, it’s a combination of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The fifth says (among other things), > [@](#): > > No person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . Until the fourteenth amendment, the bill of rights was considered only to restrict the powers of the federal government. The fourteenth amendment extended the bill of rights to the states: > [@](#): > > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/8 "2014-03-25T08:40:44Z")
> [@Doctor\_Who](#): > > The applicable law is the 14th Amendment. Under that, a confession must be voluntary in order to be admissible. Voluntariness is determined through a totality of the circumstances test. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/9 "2014-03-25T08:56:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Donnerwetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Donnerwetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donnerwetter)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/10 "2014-03-25T10:48:26Z")
What if the police officer just happens to be a compassionate human being and offers the suspect a drink to loosen up a little bit? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/11 "2014-03-25T16:44:37Z")
> [@ArrMatey](#): > > Basically what it says in the title. > > 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? “Coerced Confessions” are NOT admissible. So called “truth serum”; > **[Charles TOWNSEND, Petitioner, v. Frank G. SAIN, Sheriff of Cook County, et al.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/372/293)** Person tied to tree and beaten to obtain confession; > **[Brown v. Mississippi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Mississippi)** > > Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by the use of force on the part of law enforcement cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. > Raymond Stewart, a white planter, was murdered in Kemper County, Mississippi, on March 30, 1934. Three black tenant farmers — Arthur Ellington, Ed Brown, and Henry Shields — were arrested for his mur... ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/12 "2014-03-25T17:03:43Z")
Here is a good article on “Coerced Confessions”, and cites Brown v. Mississippi, but not Townsend. [http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4325&context=ilj](http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4325&context=ilj) ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/13 "2014-03-25T17:05:18Z")
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?) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/14 "2014-03-25T17:24:04Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > Actually, it’s a combination of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The fifth says (among other things), > > Until the fourteenth amendment, the bill of rights was considered only to restrict the powers of the federal government. The fourteenth amendment extended the bill of rights to the states: 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. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/15 "2014-03-25T17:36:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Huh? Huh as in… I didn’t know that? Or huh as in “you’re wrong!”? Or huh with some other meaning? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/16 "2014-03-25T17:39:07Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/17 "2014-03-25T17:41:50Z")
> [@Doctor\_Who](#): > > Huh as in… I didn’t know that? Or huh as in “you’re wrong!”? Or huh with some other meaning? Huh as in the points already made by Jeff Lichtman and The Second Stone. There’s no mention of interrogations or confessions in the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/18 "2014-03-25T17:54:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Huh as in the points already made by Jeff Lichtman and The Second Stone. There’s no mention of interrogations or confessions in the 14th Amendment. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/19 "2014-03-25T18:45:42Z")
> [@Doctor\_Who](#): > > 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 - > [@](#): > > …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself… 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 > [@](#): > > have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494/20 "2014-03-25T19:12:42Z")
> [@Doctor\_Who](#): > > 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? Seriously yourself. The _Miranda_ decision specifically mentions the text of the FIFTH Amendment: > [@Miranda v. Arizona](#): > > We have undertaken a thorough re-examination of the Escobedo decision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it. That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution—that **“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”** and that “the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel”—rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured "for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it… The opinion goes on to quote an 1897 case, _Bram v. US_, for the proposition that the FIFTH AMENDMENT forbids the use of coerced confessions in federal court. (384 US 436, 461) They then quote Malloy v. Hogan, a 1964 case that unamiguously applies the FIFTH AMENDMENT standard to the states: > [@](#): > > Our decision in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), necessitates an examination of the scope of the privilege in state cases as well. In Malloy, we squarely held the privilege applicable to the States, and held that the substantive standards underlying the privilege applied with full force to state court proceedings. There, as in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964), and Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965), we applied the existing\*\* Fifth Amendment standards \*\*to the case before us. Aside from the holding itself, the reasoning in Malloy made clear what had already become apparent—that the substantive and procedural safeguards surrounding admissibility of confessions in state cases had become exceedingly exacting, reflecting all the policies embedded in the privilege, 378 U. S., at 7-8. The voluntariness doctrine in the state cases, as Malloy indicates, encompasses all interrogation practices which are likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice. The implications of this proposition were elaborated in our decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, decided one week after Malloy applied the privilege to the States. The Fourteenth Amendment isn’t even mentioned in the Court’s decision. Justice Clark, in his _dissent_, says: > [@](#): > > Rather than employing the arbitrary Fifth Amendment rule which the Court lays down I would follow the more pliable dictates of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which we are accustomed to administering and which we know from our cases are effective instruments in protecting persons in police custody. So: what the hell are you talking about, **Doctor Who**? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-enforcement-drugging-during-interrogation-is-prevented-by-what-law-s/684494.md?page=2)