# The ethics of lying by law enforcement **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2002, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624 "2002-11-30T12:34:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/141 "2002-12-05T17:40:53Z")
**Lib** , I can’t answer either question, sorry. I’m not sure what **Daniel** is asking. If it is whether a police officer can tell somebody out on the street that they can be taken to the station until they can make a positive identification, it’s possiblly true. If it’s during a custodial interrogation that the officer tells the suspect that he’ll be charged with Aggravated Elbow Picking if he doesn’t confess, that could render the confession involuntary. There are too many variables in your question too. Who the judge, police officer, and defendant are, what the other evidence is, and all the other circumstances. It would be pure speculation without additional facts. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/142 "2002-12-05T17:45:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Who the judge, police officer, and defendant are, what the other evidence is, and all the other circumstances. It would be pure speculation without additional facts. But this was my problem with lying to gain a confession. If an officer went outside the “legal lie” bounds, how am I supposed to demonstrate that to render my confession involuntary? It doesn’t even help, really, to say that officers must write down any lies they tell the suspect unless all questioning must be recorded—in which case writing it down would be superfluous—as they may simply not write down the “cincher” lie. That is, they can lie about lying. [Of course it is impossible to create a perfect justice system, but that is not my attempt here so please don’t misinterpret] ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/143 "2002-12-05T18:00:04Z")
Both **Lib’s** and **eris’** concerns seem to be with proving facts as opposed to the propriety of using deception in questioning a suspect. Whether or not deception in that situation is ethical has no relevance when your real question is how can a suspect prove what was said to him during questioning. Two completely different issues. Regardless, the burden of proving the confession was voluntary is on the State. If the judge feels that he doesn’t know who to believe, then, it would appear the State has failed to meet its burden of proof and the confession would be inadmissible. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/144 "2002-12-05T18:21:16Z")
So confessions are automatically assumed involuntary much like one is automatically assumed innocent? You know, I’ll have to rethink things here. If people have repeatedly made this point then I apologize at the density I have shown. Won’t be the first time. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/145 "2002-12-05T18:32:16Z")
Even giving for the sake of argument that such presumptions in the courtroom are manifestly genuine (and I am dubious), my concern about the ethics remains. The issue of whether you can prove an officer lied is pertinent ethically to the matter of being in custody since you are robbed of your rights and liberty while you wait to make your claim. In other words, while you are in custody. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/146 "2002-12-05T18:49:07Z")
Oh, my concern for the ethics remains, but it is possible that, given certain practical conditions, the unethical nature of the actions vanish or at least are reasonably minimized. But I am still not decided on whether government itself is inherently unethical if you want to pick nits. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/147 "2002-12-05T19:07:02Z")
OK, I’ve got a technical solution that would render most of these philosophical noodlings moot. Simply videotape all police interrogations. ALL. That way the judge and jury can witness the conduct of the police. If it is simply a matter of “Yeah, I understand she was coming on to you. Tell me more about it, buddy…” then I think almost anyone would accept that level of deception. If it’s “Confess or we’ll shoot your mother”, the confession obviously was coerced. And we can trust the jury to tell the difference. I imagine that videotaped confessions would benefit the cops 99% of the time, and benefit the suspect 1% of the time. Both ways would be a benefit to society. Ubiquitous videocameras are going to change the criminal justice system. I imagine in a few years, shoulder mounted video cameras are going to be standard issue for all cops, video cameras in all cop cars, in every jail cell, in every interrogation room, in every courtroom. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/148 "2002-12-05T19:27:08Z")
A fine idea, Lemur! A fine idea indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/149 "2002-12-05T19:42:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > \*\ ***Lib** , I can’t answer either question, sorry. I’m not sure what **Daniel** is asking. If it is whether a police officer can tell somebody out on the street that they can be taken to the station until they can make a positive identification, it’s possiblly true. If it’s during a custodial interrogation that the officer tells the suspect that he’ll be charged with Aggravated Elbow Picking if he doesn’t confess, that could render the confession involuntary. > \*\* Well, my specifics were that the cops told me I’d be charged with violation of paragraph 142, subsection 8 of the California Penal Code if I refused to give my name, address, and other identifying information to them. I was already in custody. The police were lying: when you’re in custody, you have a right to remain silent, and this means you don’t have to tell the cops anything at all, even your name. My question is whether this type of lie is legal for a cop. I think that this specific one is at least unethical and possibly illegal. In general, can cops tell a suspect that (for example) failing to cooperate with them on an investigation is illegal, when it actually isn’t illegal? Oh, and thanks for this thread, all, and **Badge** , thanks for your other thread: it’s very interesting! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/150 "2002-12-05T20:24:20Z")
**Daniel** , I don’t know California law, but I can’t think of anything illegal about a police officer misstating the law to somebody in custody. There may be civil penalties, such as a 1983 suit, if it somehow violates your civil rights, but I can’t imagine any criminal statute that would apply. **Lemur** I agree that videotaping confessions is a great way of handling the issue and I recommend it to all law enforcement bodies that can afford it. I do have a problem making it a legal requirement that confessions must be videotaped before they are admissible. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/151 "2002-12-05T20:31:25Z")
Well, even if videotaping isn’t a legal requirement, it can become a societal expectation. If you’re on a jury, the cops produce a confession and the defendent claims it was coerced, lack of a videotape might be considered reasonable doubt as to whether it was coerced or not. After all, what incentive do the cops have for NOT videotaping a non-coerced confession? As for the expense, I guess the main expense wouldn’t be the video system itself…only a few hundred bucks. The main expense would be storing, archiving, and maintaining the evidence. I don’t know how much that might cost… ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/152 "2002-12-05T20:44:10Z")
**Hamlet** , thanks for the answer. Honestly, it wasn’t that big of a deal – it’s not like I was beaten or anything, and I was more upset by their refusal to give me a book to read than by their fakey threats. But it did seem a little weird, and it does sound like they were telling me I didn’t have the right to remain silent, which IMO the police shouldn’t be allowed to suggest. Lying about evidence in a case is one thing; lying to a suspect about their rights is very different, I think. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/153 "2002-12-05T20:51:49Z")
Hamlet wrote: > [@](#): > > Daniel, I don’t know California law, but I can’t think of anything illegal about a police officer misstating the law to somebody in custody. God help us. (Please don’t take my aversion personally, Hamlet. I admire you. It is the law that I find ethically reprehensible.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/154 "2002-12-05T20:59:04Z")
Hamlet One thing that occurs to me is that an authority could use what you just said to weasel his way into a coercion that otherwise might throw out the confession in accordance with your prior list. Consider this: The authority tells the suspect, “Okay, the law says that we can hold you for up to ten years before your hearing, but if you’ll sign the confession, we won’t invoke that law.” He is making no direct threat. In fact, he is saying that he won’t invoke the alleged law. He isn’t making any deal because the law doesn’t exist. He is “merely” misrepresenting the law. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/155 "2002-12-05T21:00:35Z")
Sorry, but one more question: can the defendant tell the jury at trial that he was lied to about the law, and can the jury hold that against the prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/156 "2002-12-05T21:11:56Z")
IANAL, but in most cases the defense has a wider latitude about what they may bring up as a possible defense. All they have to do is show reasonable doubt, not to disprove the prosecution’s case. And a jury can take whatever they like into account. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/157 "2002-12-05T22:13:05Z")
Here’s where I’m at for the moment. Leaving aside the question of legalities, do the safeguards **Hamlet** described [in this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&postid=2671068#post2671068) have any bearing on the ethical behaviour of police pfficers during questioning? In other words, does admissabiilty of a confession retroactively make a lie ethical? I can’t convince myself that it does. On a practical note, the safeguards, particularly the idea that confessions are presumed involuntary and are, nominally at least, subjected to rigorous examination before they are admitted as evidence, do provide some degree of comfort. Thanks, **Hamlet** , for the patient reiteration of your views. And yes, being able to go to the videotape of interrogations would be wonderful. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/158 "2002-12-06T00:06:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Hamlet > The authority tells the suspect, “Okay, the law says that we can hold you for up to ten years before your hearing, but if you’ll sign the confession, we won’t invoke that law.” > > He is making no direct threat. In fact, he is saying that he won’t invoke the alleged law. He isn’t making any deal because the law doesn’t exist. He is “merely” misrepresenting the law. \*\* I can’t imagine a court would admit such a confession. Well, I can, because I’ve seen courts do goofy stuff, but I really doubt it. It certainly is a promise of a deal, even if there is no real way of consumating the “deal.” The courts tend to look at the state of mind of the suspect, and in your example, it seems relatively clear that the confession was involuntary. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*can the defendant tell the jury at trial that he was lied to about the law, and can the jury hold that against the prosecution? > \*\* Sure the jury should hear it, and consider it in their determination of the reliability of the confession. It would probably have been heard by the judge at a pre-trial hearing regarding the admissibility of the confession, but the jury would also hear about it, and can use it in determining the facts of the case. However, the jury shouldn’t (and I’m not opening that can of worms here) be able to say “We think the defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but we don’t like the fact that the officer lied to the defendant so we’re finding him not guilty.” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fatwater Fewl \* > \*\*do the safeguards Hamlet described in this post have any bearing on the ethical behaviour of police pfficers during questioning? In other words, does admissabilty of a confession retroactively make a lie ethical? I can’t convince myself that it does. > \*\* The safeguards are the legal standards courts use to determine the admissibility of the confession. I have adopted the same reasoning in my determination of the ethicalness…ethicalicity…ethicalopoly… you know what I mean. The analysis, for me, is generally the same, and it’s not done retroactively. ---
**Author:** ![DonIn\_Florida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ccd318/32.png) [@DonIn\_Florida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonIn_Florida)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/159 "2011-06-20T16:22:36Z")
> [@Badge](#): > > The general rule established by the courts allows law enforcement officers to lie to a suspect during interrogation so long as the lie is not “shocking to the conscience” and does not “overpower” the suspect’s will to not confess. > > Those are the facts. Of course, the ethics are far more dicey. > > I would prefer to always take the high road and never tell a lie while questioning a suspect. However, if I did that, I would catch far fewer bad guys. If I had to admit to every one I questioned that I don’t really have the probable cause to arrest them unless I get a confession, no one would ever confess. I often have to pretend to know things that I don’t really know, or to have evidence that I don’t really have. > > A related subject is the old myth that undercover officers must admit that they are cops if asked directly. Obviously, this would never work or undercover operations would be completely impossible. > > Another scenario is not telling the suspect everything that you know. One reason is to aloow him or her make a “lie statement” that can be used against him or her later. Another is to keep them from fully knowing how much trouble they might be in. I had a stabbing once in which the victim died at the hospital. I didn’t tell the suspect that he was dead until after I questioned him, since I figured he would lawyer up as soon as he knew he was looking at a murder charge. Even his defense attorney didn’t challenge me on that, since he knows that there is no requirement to inform the suspect of exactly what charges me may eventually be facing. > > So, do the ends justify the means? I believe so, so long as we have the courts and juries to keep officers from going overboard and telling lies that would cause even an innocent man to confess. We count on the system to throw out cases like that. > > In a perfect world, the police wouldn’t have to lie because the suspects wouldn’t be lying to them, either. As long as the bad guys lie, the good guys are forced to do so as well to get the job done. Another sad comment on how the world works. While this is all true it has no basis in fairness. Why it has no basis in fairness is Police are allowed to lie to a suspect during questioning, however if the suspect lies in return they can be charged with a crime. As proof of this please refer to the current case of Casey Anthony where part of her charges are four counts of lying to law enforcement. While I am sure Police lied to her during questioning. Another example I can give is Brevard County Sheriffs routinly ask a stopped driver “do you mind if I search your car?” Most people do not know this is illegal! By Florida law (as explained to me by a former Melbourne Beach Officer) any ticket MUST be issued and the driver FREE TO GO prior to this question being asked. I was stopped for not stopping at a stop sign not long ago, the deputy asked the question prior to giving me a ticket, I flatly refused to allow the search (as a side note nothing illegal was in my car) He then gave me a ticket, I took it to court using the law above and won hands down and the Judge actually admonished the deputy (who wasn’t there) on the record. So people know your rights and the laws of the land ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624/160 "2011-06-20T19:07:59Z")
**DonIn Florida** , I’m going to recommend that you start a new thread about this topic. This thread hasn’t been active since December 2002 and it’s a little late to revive that discussion. -Marley23 Great Debates Moderator [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lying-by-law-enforcement/139624.md?page=7)