Can a police officer legally lie to a suspect in order to obtain a confession?
On a recent episode of The Shield, a good-cops, bad-cops TV drama, a young man was being interrogated on suspicion of attempted murder – the victim not, as yet, having died. His defense was that, had he done it, the victim would be “all the way dead”. The fellow was a gang initiate and allegedly shot the victim as an initiation rite.
Late in the show, the interrogator learns that the victim is now in stable condition and will survive. She returns to the interrogation room and tells the suspect that the victim died, and that someone else is claiming responsibility. The suspect confesses to the crime in a burst of pride.
Is that legal? Would it hold up in court? Or would the suspect walk because of it?
The courts have ruled again and again that the police can lie in the course of investigations. The only limit I have seen is that the lie cannot be “shocking to the conscience”. This is obviously a very subjective test, and I can only imagine what lie would fail that test.
Personally, I prefer to limit using lies when interrogating someone, but I do use them occasionally.
If he was not placed under arrest, they can lie to him. Once he is under arrest, they must tell the truth but they can be deceptive to a point. I was told this by a police officer during a ride along after he had lied to get a confession out of someone in my presence. It was a very interesting evening.
So falsely telling someone the person they allegedly attacked died is okay for someone like the gang member who presumably wouldn’t be greatly affected, but not okay for someone who is known to have a strong moral aversion to it, who potentially had no intention of going so far in their alleged attack?
Seems hard to pin that down in court.
I suppose the distinction is intended to be between a white lie and one more potent. I think I could make such a distinction if I were the interrogating officer (indeed, if I were an officer). Have there been any cases of the officer making too strong a lie?
I can’t think of any instances where the case was thrown out because the officer told too strong a lie, but I imagine it must have happened at some time.
As to hajario’s post, I’ve never heard of any difference in the rules about lying depending on whether the person is under arrest or not. That may be something specific to hajario’s state that isn’t in federal law or in my state of Washington.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been a cop for 17 years and have been a detective sergeant for the last four. Interrogating people is a daily routine for me.
As luck would have it a case came down from the Iowa Court of Appeals just this week. Here is a synopsis of the decision:
00-2087. [1-672] STATE v. LONG (full opinion)
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James C. Bauch, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ. Opinion by Zimmer, J. (9 pages $3.60)
In May 1999, fourteen-year-old Ashley C. met fifty-four year old William Long through a friend who worked for Long. Long allegedly touched Ashley inappropriately and solicited oral sex from her. On February 23, 2000, Long voluntarily appeared for a polygraph test administered by Division of Criminal Investigations agent Larry Hedlund at the Division's office in Cedar Falls. The results of the polygraph exam were inconclusive. After the examination, Hedlund told Long that his charts were not truthful and that I felt that he did have sexual contact with the victim . . . . Long subsequently admitted he touched Ashley's breast on three or four different occasions underneath her bra with his hand. He also admitted he had rubbed or stroked her inner thigh. He denied having any other sexual contact with Ashley. Long was charged with solicitation to commit sexual abuse and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, along with three charges of supplying alcohol to a minor, which are not at issue on appeal. He filed a motion to suppress, seeking the suppression of statements he made to Hedlund after the polygraph examination. The district court denied his motion, finding that Hedlund did not practice deception, and even if his actions were deceptive, the deception did not rise to the level where Long's will was overborne and his statements were involuntary. During his jury trial, Long advised the court he wished to cross-examine Hedlund on each and every feature of a six-page report that Hedlund prepared regarding Long's polygraph examination. The trial court denied Long's request. A jury convicted Long of the charged offenses. He appeals. OPINION HOLDS: I. We find there was an element of deception in Hedlund's statement to Long that his charts were not truthful and that I felt that he did have sexual contact with the victim . . . . The polygraph test results were inconclusive. While Long's charts could not be construed as truthful, they did not demonstrate that Long was lying. Hedlund's statement was at best incomplete. II. Although an element of deception was employed by Hedlund, after considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude Long's will was not overborne such that his statements were involuntary. The district court properly denied Long's motion to suppress his statements. III. Although polygraph test results are generally inadmissible absent a stipulation of the parties, we determine the district court abused its discretion in failing to allow Long to fully cross-examine Hedlund regarding the procedures he used to elicit Long's admissions. In this case, Hedlund was much more than a polygraph examiner; he also interrogated Long at length. It was up to the jury to consider the weight and credibility of Long's admissions. We conclude the jury was entitled to consider the full story surrounding Long's admissions to Hedlund, including the circumstances of the polygraph exam, in order to determine the weight and credibility of Long's admissions. We affirm the trial court in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial.
From this decision, it appears that while deceptiveness concerns the court, it is only grounds for suppression if it violates the 5th Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
An example of a lie which is “shocking to the conscience” might be telling a suspect that a family member has died, making certain threats, or identifying oneself as an attorney.
I presume you’re joking. If I tell a merchant lies to secure credit, no court in the land will recognize my “freedom of speech”.
It is… well, bizarre to me that the entity charged with enforcing and executing the law is allowed to lie. Why not let the judges lie, too? Why not let Congress make a law that says the opposite of what it means?
Okay, I know what you’re saying, but I was only being half-facetious. My point is, the default case is that people can lie, not that they can’t. When you said that police are “allowed” to lie, it seemed like you thought that there was a law actively put into place to allow it. But I’m saying that they can lie not because they’ve been allowed to, but because they haven’t been prevented from it.
Reading this thread, I’ve been wondering about something somewhat related :
Here, what people under arrest (or even mere witnesses) say to the police when questionned is written down and they have to sign the document, so aknowledging that it’s actually what they said/meant.
I just realized that I never see such a thing in an american movie, serie, etc…Of course, there’s a difference between reality and what is depicted on a screen, but since american people seem, on the overall, to be very enamored with depictions of the justice system, trials, procedures, etc…, I suspect it would be sometimes mentionned.
So, are the statements made to the police by suspects and witnesses written down in the US? And can they check whether or not the document is accurate?
If not, what happens if the person later deny having ever said that, or state the officer didn’t understand correctly, or is misrepresenting what he said? For instance, during a trial?
There’s going to be a movie on Court TV that touches on this very topic. It’s about a young boy who is subjected to such an intense interrogation that he confesses to murdering his little sister. Of course, it comes out that he had nothing to do with it. The fascinating part is that they videotaped the police interrogation, so you can witness the tactics they use to pressure a confession out of someone. The videotaped interrogation was originally shown on an episode of The System, but now Court TV has turned it into a docu-drama.
I’ve got nothing to address the OP.