Deceptive Techniques Used by Cops

Police

Deception is an integral part of the police arsenal during interrogation. The tactics and techniques of deception have been finely honed, and continue to improve to allow for effective interrogation and information retrieval. Within the framework of judicious police interrogation, the techniques and tactics can be employed effectively, efficiently, and ethically. A few, like the Reid Technique, have been criticized for their misuses and for their tendency to create false confessions (McKee, 2014). Other tactics and techniques do deserve to remain part of the overall law enforcement strategy, especially when the tactics and techniques preserve the integrity of the investigation. One of the most commonly used deceptive interrogation tactics is minimization. Minimization is used to engender trust and establish a bond of communication with the suspect. The law enforcement officer basically bluffs throughout the interview, downplaying the severity of the crime itself, feigning sympathy with the suspect's point-of-view, and reinforcing the suspect's alibi. Minimization is a tactic that does not necessarily need to adversely impact the validity of information gained during an interview, which is why minimization should continue to be used.

It is important to remember that interrogations of suspects in the police context are almost always "guilt-presumptive processes," (Redlich & Meissner, n.d., p. 3). Presumed guilt is potentially problematic, as it can entail confirmation bias that could sidetrack an investigation, lead to legal and ethical conundrums, and potentially lead to false confessions. However, it is also assumed that once law enforcement selects a suspect for interrogation, the suspect has already passed numerous tests and evaluations that lead to a reasonable enough suspicion of guilt to warrant using deception as a tactic. The experience of the presiding officers and the caliber of the law enforcement team are significant variables when determining the efficacy of using minimization and similar tactics in suspect interrogations.

Interrogations are unique situations, and they operate under special legal umbrellas. Whereas professionals in other areas of practice are expressly prohibited from using deception and outright lying, police officers are permitted to deceive. A number of Supreme Court cases have upheld the right of officers to do so including Sorrells v. U.S. And U.S. v. Russell (Rutledge, 2007). Ethical dilemmas aside, interrogations provide an opportunity to gather the most critical information needed in an investigation. Law enforcement officers would be constrained if they were unable to deceive suspects in order to solicit information. For this reason, the general public affords law enforcement officers the ability to lie -- just as the general public affords law enforcement officers the ability to use force.

Minimization is a technique that all law enforcement officials use at some point in their career in order to extract information or a confession. In my personal and professional experience, I have seen minimization be used effectively to achieve the goal of breaking down communications barriers between suspect and officer. Suspects come into the interrogation room filled with a gamut of emotions including fear, anger, and worry. The goal of minimization is to capitalize on these emotions to help the suspect cooperate. A law enforcement officer might tell the person that their confession will lead to a lesser sentence, for example, something that may or may not be true. As long as the suspect has been read the Miranda rights, it is within the rights of the presiding officer to use minimization to trick the suspect. When the suspect does not yield any information in the course of the interrogation, the officers either try a new tactic or they reevaluate their suspect pool.

Not all suspects will respond to minimization, however. Law enforcement officers never really know which suspects will, but there are some cues as to how to effectively employ the tactic. For example, a first time offender might be especially prone to softening up when minimization is being used. A repeat offender may be too used to minimization, and it might require maximization instead. Maximization is the outright falsification of the facts: such as telling the suspect that their partner confessed to the crime too and implicated them. Persons with sociopathic tendencies might not respond to minimization either, because the technique has an essentially emotional component. Persons who are too detached from their emotions, or who feel no fear or remorse, might not respond to minimization.

Police interrogations are most often recorded, and the information gathered available for the jury in the court of law. This means that officers of the law are expected to use the tactic well, avoid using it on vulnerable populations like children or the mentally disabled, and to ensure the reading of the Miranda rights. A police officer who tells the suspect under interrogation that, "it was probably just an accident" is baiting the person, but not doing anything that could remotely be conceived as being illegal or unjust. After all, an innocent adult would say, "what accident? I'm actually innocent, and now I need to speak with my attorney." Minimization should be continued, because it is actually one of the least invasive and least offensive of the types of deceptive techniques officers can use.