INTERROGATING SUSPECTS

To some degree, the general rules that apply in interviewing nonsuspects also apply in interviewing suspects. Special considerations must be given, however, in certain areas. If a suspect is ready, willing, and able to tell the truth, the suspect should be allowed to do it in his or her own way, after appropriate advisement of rights.

Preparation for an interrogation should be as thorough as time permits. It should be similar to the preparation for an interview.

Planning the Interrogation

You should base your plan for interrogation on the facts of the case and the background information developed on the subject. Statements of witnesses, in addition to information derived from physical evidence of the case, enable you to reconstruct the crime mentally and to anticipate some of the facts or fiction that you may obtain from the subject during the interrogation. Then decide on your initial techniques and alternates should the initial techniques prove unsuccessful.

When suspects are apprehended at the scene of the crime, it is sometimes advisable, after a Rights warning is given and oral waiver obtained to interrogate them on the spot. Whether this would be psychologically advantageous will depend on the individual suspect and your appraisal of the suspect.

It should be noted that the longer the delay between apprehension of the suspect and the time of interrogation, the better the opportunity for the suspect to gain composure, fabricate alibis and, in some cases, communicate with accomplices. In any event, do not attempt to advise a suspect of his or her rights during apprehension until after the suspect has been searched for weapons.

Even in cases where offenders are apprehended immediately after the crime, interrogations should be delayed until the suspect is brought to the investigator's office. Here, in a proper interrogation room, the suspect should be advised of his or her rights; and if the rights are waived, a signed waiver should be obtained and witnessed by you and one other person.

If, at the time of apprehension, you plan to delay questioning of the suspect, a full Rights warning should be given immediately. Also, you should tell the suspect that you do not intend to conduct an interview until later.

NOTE

There is no reason to warn the suspect immediately after apprehension unless you plan to ask questionts/interrogate. However, the suspect should be warned if you plan to interrogate him or her immediately. The suspect should also be warned if there is undue delay between apprehension and formal interrogation time frames.

When a suspect is not apprehended at the crime scene but is later identified through investigation, the best time to schedule the interrogation is not necessarily as soon as possible.

In some cases, it may be better not to let the suspect know you have identified him or her and to delay the interrogation until all other investigative leads are completed, including determining the complete background of the suspect. This allows you the greatest possible psychological advantage in the interrogation.

The interrogation should be scheduled so that no other activities interrupt it or cut it short. Because the interrogation is normally time-consuming and never hurried, no time limit is placed on it. The interrogation, however, is not continued for a length of time that would be suggestive of duress.

It is difficult to state in advance how long is too long. A rule of thumb is for you to be able to show the court that you were considerate of the suspect's needs for food, water, personal hygiene, and rest.

As was previously stated, a criminal, surprised and apprehended in the act of committing a crime, is not usually interrogated on the spot. Such questioning is normally of little value to establish the involvement of the criminal in the offense the subject was caught committing, since that is well established by being caught in the act. Properly handled, however, this interrogation may produce a confession that will clear up other like crimes-such as a series of burglaries. Also, such interrogation may help to identify accomplices.

Ideally, the interrogation should be conducted at an interrogation room where facilities are available for recording the interrogation; where secretarial assistance is available; and where witnesses are available to guard against possible charges of abuse, duress, or coercion, and to observe the manner in which statements, admissions, and confessions are obtained. At a regular interrogation room, you can arrange for privacy during the interrogation, control the physical environment, and make reasonably certain that the interrogation will not be interrupted.

The interrogation room should be plainly but comfortably furnished without pictures or similar items that could distract the attention of the subject. The surroundings should not remind the subject that he or she is in police custody or jail.

Two-way mirrors and similar equipment should be installed so they appear as normal furnishings insofar as possible. Acoustic tile may be used to soundproof the room. When possible, the room must also have temperature control, including air-conditioning, to preclude later defense counsel claims that a confession was "sweated" or "frozen" out of the accused. The furniture should consist of a small, narrow table to write on, but which gives the suspect nothing to "hide" behind and three comfortable chairs.

Anything that might be needed such as paper, statement forms, the MCM, an ashtray, and so forth, should be in place before beginning the interview or interrogation. No telephone should be in the room, as its ringing might distract the suspect at the wrong psychological moment in the interrogation.

Weapons or articles that might serve as weapons are not left in any interrogation room. The door should have a "Do Not Disturb" sign.

If an interrogation room is not available to you (as it will not be aboard ship) you should try to furnish your office or a space to be used as an interrogation room to conform with the guidelines previously discussed for an interrogation room.

Classifying Suspects

Suspects are classified as follows:

1. Known offenders whose guilt is reasonably certain because of evidence available. These offenders may be more readily influenced by sympathy or understanding, or by logic.

2. Suspects whose guilt is doubtful or uncertain because of lack of essential facts or because of weaknesses in the available evidence.

Some suspects cannot be placed precisely in either of these two categories. The accuracy of your efforts to classify a suspect depends upon your ability and experience and upon the availability and accuracy of information developed about the suspect or the case. An incorrect classification may lead to an unsuccessful interrogation if the questioning technique based on the original classification is not skillfully modified or changed during the interview.

The Interrogation

As in beginning a witness interview, you should introduce yourself and make sure the suspect is aware of your identity as a law enforcement officer. Before you ask any incriminating questions, tell the suspect what offense he or she is suspected of and advise the suspect of his or her rights.

Although there are as many techniques as an investigator's imagination will allow, there are only two approaches: indirect and direct.

Indirect approach. The indirect approach is exploratory in nature. It is usually used when interrogating a suspect whose guilt is uncertain or doubtful. In the indirect approach, the questioning is designed to develop a detailed account of the suspect's activities before, during, and after the time the offense was committed. Alibis offered by the suspect should be checked to determine their truthfulness. Facts that are definitely known to you and that suggest the suspect's guilt should be used in formulating questions to test reactions and to determine whether the suspect is inclined to lie.

When evidence is lacking or is weak, you must proceed cautiously to place the suspect in a position where he or she will be forced to distort or alter facts that are definitely known to you. The suspect should then be requested to explain satisfactorily any discrepancy or distortion of factual information. You may, at times, imply that much more is actually known by making statements or by asking questions that lead the suspect to believe that the answers are already known.

When, due to statements made by the suspect, you become more certain of the suspect's guilt, you may wish to switch to a direct approach.

Direct approach. The direct approach is normally used to interrogate a suspect whose guilt is reasonably certain. In using this approach, you should assume an air of confidence with regard to, and stress the evidence or testimony indicative of the guilt of the suspect. In the direct approach, behave in an accusatory manner displaying complete belief in the suspect's guilt and strive to learn WHY the suspect committed an offense rather than IF the suspect committed the offense.