Effective interviews with suspects often lead to confessions
Policing is a very social profession. From the officers' first day on the force to their last, they will speak to many people in the course of their career. One of the most important skills an officer can develop is the art of interviewing. Officers must necessarily interview victims, witnesses and potential witnesses in the course of any investigation. The most interesting and challenging interviews, however, are those with the suspects of crimes.
Effective questioning of suspects is a crucial talent for police officers, and that's especially true for detectives. Good interviews take a lot of time, but a successful interview can save a detective many hours in the future. About 70 percent of those convicted of felony crimes confessed.
In most cases, suspects who confess to crimes don't take their cases to trial, but instead accept plea agreements. The detective’s time saved comes from not having to relocate witnesses, serve subpoenas and spend days in court attending trials.
A police detective questions a suspect at the Kent County Sheriff's Department in this file photo.
Courtesy of the Grand Rapids Press
To get to the truth, interviewers must do their homework prior to the interview. They must know all they can about the case being investigated. This may be no small task in the case of a homicide, where there might be a dozen investigators working on different tasks related to the same case.
The interviewer must familiarize himself or herself with all of the reports generated by those other officers contributing to the case. They must know what evidence there is. They must know what witnesses have told officers. They must know what the scene looked like. They must know the dates and times involved with the incident. They must know every aspect of the investigation.
The interviewer should also learn about the person he or she is about to interview. They must know what kind of criminal history the suspect has. If possible, it is nice to know who the suspect associates with, the person's habits and whether that person has confessed to other crimes in the past.
Investigators must know the law prior to the interview. They must always keep the suspect’s rights in mind while conducting the interview. Investigators must also make sure they know all the elements of the crime the person is being accused of so that during the course of the interview, all of the elements can be established if the suspect is making a statement.
Upon meeting the suspect, the interviewer must first establish rapport with that person. The person being interviewed doesn’t have to like the interviewer, but must trust the interviewer.
Once the interview begins, the detective must remember all of the things he or she has learned about the case. They must take notes even if the interview is being taped because sometimes tape recording devices fail and also because they can quickly refer to the notes to monitor whether a story is changing.
The interviewer must ask questions efficiently. Normally, they will start with very general questions like: “What happened?” As the interview progresses, the questions get more specific down to the smallest detail.
While the suspect is answering the questions, the interviewer must listen carefully for subtle verbal clues. They must watch the suspect’s body language for physiological clues indicating whether the person is being truthful. The interviewer must analyze whether the suspect’s story matches the evidence at the scene and the witness statements. The interviewer must also be thinking ahead and preparing the next questions.
In short, the interviewer is extremely mentally busy during the interview. For this reason, time flies at incredible rates while conducting an interview. Many times, I felt like I had spent 15-30 minutes interviewing a person — only to check my watch and find it had been two hours.
It has been my experience that effective interviewing solves the majority of crimes because someone saw something and someone knows something. Crime laboratories, like those depicted on the CSI television programs, prove cases in court later, but it is effective interviewing that initially solves cases.
Lock it up, don’t leave it unattended, be aware and watch out for your neighbors.
Rich Kinsey is a retired Ann Arbor police detective sergeant who now blogs about crime and safety for AnnArbor.com.
Comments
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 2:57 p.m.
pls let me clarify prevoius entry.. "only two" (which really is also "very few"). additoinally, althogh contact has been rare, and with those two exceptons, the ohter, ohhhh, say, 12-15 officers were high quality repersentatives. jsut so you know.
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 11:16 a.m.
@hunterjim: "The law allows them to speak with those people who may help solve the case. I hear alot of people commenting on lawyering up..sounds like they have something to hide...."... hide? no, they have someting to protect - themsoleves. i have been seriously disabused of contributing to solving an alleged crime and talking to oneof ann arbor;s (very few) crimianl-cops. they are rare but they are there lurking behind their coloring (book) of law. oh, i didn;t learn the first time, either.
JE
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 10:53 p.m.
Mr. Kinsey, You may find this interesting. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/14/shining-a-new-light-on-false-confessions/
Ricebrnr
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:45 p.m.
@pawky Again knowing your rights and exercising them does not equal contempt of the authorities. You should talk to Laura Johnson about it.
pawky
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:30 p.m.
If you are a criminal, it's probably best to get a lawyer first. Don't forget that jails & prisons are filled with innocent people. Don't believe me? Just ask any prisoner, they'll tell you. Remember to never ask them "what did you do"? Always ask them "What're ya in for"? Innocent people that don't cooperative with the police are the guilty person's best friend causing delayed or denied justice. My & I family sre thankful for the men & women in law enforcement. Based on the support shown in the blogs, they can keep it.
Hunterjim
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:01 p.m.
sorry for the spelling errors!
Ricebrnr
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 6:47 p.m.
I agree with you many criminals do talk more than willingly. I love watching Cop reality shows for that very reason. Those pointing out negative examples, contrary as they may be, still offer a counterpoint to Rich's usual and clear partisan viewpoint. Much as I respect his viewpoint (and service) it is only his half of the story. So as someone who usually sticks in his.02 when others don't want to hear it, I think we are well serve when we have both sides to consider for ourselves.
Hunterjim
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 6:29 p.m.
ricebrnr, I beleive in the Constitution and our rights. But it bothers me that these comments insinuate that the Police are going to violate your rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am sure some examples can be quoted where a persons rights were voilated, but in the big scheme of things it is very rare. Whether you believe it or not, most people, including the most seasoned criminal want to talk, and tell their side of the issue. I hope that if the police interview someone who has committed a crime against me that they stay within the law but use their investigative skills to get the suspect to talk...and that is the point of Rich's article.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 6:02 p.m.
@Hunterjim Unfortunately or fortunately the Constitution protects us all, good and bad alike. Just because some aspects of it are distasteful (depending on your perspective) like book burning (Qurans or otherwise) or free speech OR that distasteful people might use or misuse them DOES NOT PRECLUDE their existence to protect the rest of us. So no knowing your rights and protecting yourself ESPECIALLY if you have nothing to hide is no sin.
Hunterjim
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 3:58 p.m.
I don't understand the resentment towards the police doing their job. "Just lawyer up". OK remember.. that god forbid your ever a victim of a serious crime, or you child is abducted, tell the suspect...don't say a word...get a lawyer...don't give the police any information that will harm the suspect...now does that make sense? Police are not perfect, but they do have a job to do, solve crimes. The law allows them to speak with those people who may help solve the case. I hear alot of people commenting on lawyering up..sounds like they have something to hide....
Ricebrnr
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 3:23 p.m.
Minor aside, Knowing your rights and standing up for yourself, as well as advocating for such does not equate to "contempt of cop" here or in person. You can and should do the former and can and should still respect the latter. It's when athe Authorities hold the People in contempt, when they over react or usurp more authority than they are due, when THEY consider themselves apart from US that the problems arise. Knowing your rights and keeping the balance between the State and the People is a quintessential American and patriotic duty and there is nothing wrong with that.
Heardoc
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:27 p.m.
@hunterjim Explain the release of people from death row that confessed to the crime? I just read yesterday that a Sheriff deputy from clark county, State of Washington just had his conviction overturned after 25 years and he was released due to proven innocence even though he confessed in an interview. You seem to think police commit no crimes and they are as pure as the driven snow. I c hose to see the reality that anyone with the authority the police have are tempted to use their powers inappropriately and many succumb to this desire in the police ranks. It is very impressive to see an honest cop at work -- but the sad fact is this: Many Cops lie with regularity.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:25 p.m.
I can appreciate that view point but it just isn't practical. I mean, I don't actually have an attorney on call. Does that mean that any time I have business with a police officer or have information that they might find useful, I have to call an attorney, discuss fees, arrange a time, etc? What if I just want to tell them I saw someone breaking into cars or saw someone hitting someone else, etc? Granted, in any situation where I think there is any potential to be considered a suspect, I might go through the trouble of lawyering up. But otherwise, it seems like more trouble than it is worth.
Heardoc
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:19 p.m.
@womaninYpsilanti I would always be very trepid about talking to the police. Let's look at it like this; An example would be a used car salesman -- I know there are honest used car salesmen out there but there are enough bad ones that I question them all. The police are in this category as well. There are good policemen out there -- but there are enough bad ones that it is necessary to question their motives and to protect yourself from the police.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:56 a.m.
It is always good advice to have to a lawyer present for any formal questioning by a police officer. But come on. It just isn't practical to always have a police officer present. I've witnessed crimes and I think it is generally pretty safe to talk to the police if one is unlikely to be a suspect of the crime in question.
scooter dog
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.
Loose lips sink ships. That being said,I would never,ever,ever talk to the police in a interview or in there presence alone without a lawyer present. I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide but these days I don't trust anyone. Case in point,the woman in farmington hills who had her life turned upside down by the GRANDSTANDING police dept.and out of control prosecuter. After reading about her living hell,Sorry get a lawyer
treetowncartel
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 10:30 a.m.
Two words if arrested, Lawyer up and make it a level playing field. Also, Police will often try to talk to you when you are not arrested, maybe ask you to come in for questioning, or talk to you outside of your house. This is a classic method for getting around the rights guarantered under the 4th Amendment.
fortin911
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:51 a.m.
I have always had good relations with the police community until I came accross a defective detective years ago and had to go on trial for a crime I didnot committ. I told my lawyer I would choose a jury of analytical people based on their profession. My lawyer was very supprised at my method and I also asked the prosecutor to detail my criminal past to the jury. (He reveled no past criminal record) I hung the jury 11 to 1 in my favor and the court scheduled a second trial a month later hoping I would pleabargin to a lesser crime. The new trial date came and all charges were dropped. I did later ask that this defective detective be investigated and was not supprised when they found his background was not so clean and his police career ended and he spent ten years at Jackson Prison. Most police officers are glad this defective detective is not in their ranks!
John of Saline
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.
Mr. Kinsey, you mention the officer must be well-versed in the crime in question. Are you trained not to use that knowledge to elicit false confessions? See, for example, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/14/shining-a-new-light-on-false-confessions/ and the linked story the posting refers to. Detailed confessions have been obtained by interrogating suspects for extended periods of time, then making sure to feed them critical details when the "confessor" makes errors while describing the crime he supposedly committed.
ffej440
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:13 a.m.
In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty. Never speak without a lawyer. Google the case of Eddie Joe Lloyd or visit the Innocence project website for more information. You will be surprised how often this happens.
Joe Dohm
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.
Don't hate the cops, but do protect yourself. Never speak to an officer without a lawyer if you can help it. As Rich just pointed out, he or she has made a career out of getting people to either confess or incriminate themselves, and you will be a rank novice. It is only fair for you to have an expert as well.
actionjackson
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:18 a.m.
Always a good idea to have a lawyer present! Not all detectives are as honest and good a cop as Rich.
Hunterjim
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:04 a.m.
Cash, Neither article in the Freepress or Detroit news, indicate that the police pushed for the arrest warrant. It was the prosecutor. Had the prosecutor followed what Rich points out, that is, take the interview and compare it to the evidence to see how it fits. The evidence of how the victim died had not been determined, so that step was skipped...by the Prosecutor. BUT, remember none of us know the whole story, only what has been released to the press, who then spin it to a great story. There may have been more information that lead to the conclusion she had commited a crime. only when the case is closed and a FOIA request is made that we will know exactly what happened.
Hunterjim
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.
So what Heardoc, and pawky are saying that they will never talk to the police when they are a victim of a crime. They do not want the police officer to find the truth about an incident where someone has accused them of commiting a crime. Everyone including criminals have a story to tell, they want to be heard, they want to tell their side of the story. The interview process is a powerful tool to determine what the TRUTH is. Is the "victim" being honest, is the witness adding things they never saw, does the suspect have a rational explanation for their involvment. Without the interview, these questions can not be answered. So go ahead and remain silent, but accept the consequences of your actions. Rich's point of this article is that your police officers who serve you, want to find the TRUTH no matter where it is, and a good interviewer can accomplish that.
Cash
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:30 a.m.
pawky, How did that work for Mrs Johnson who was held in jail and charged with murder....long before the pathologist said her husband died of natural causes? Then, not even an apology as charges were dismissed? Some excellent write ups about that in today's Free Press. There are checks and balances that need to be considered. And we must be ever vigilant of those who abuse power, save the vast majority who don't. @Heardoc, I absolutely agree. Never blindly trust. Trust is earned. A person can be very respectful without surrendering blind trust.
Chuck
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:19 a.m.
When you have rosewood, confessions come easily.
pawky
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:04 a.m.
@Heardoc, "i have always told my children to be courteous to the police but to never speak to the police". Wow. A much better plan is to teach children to be law-abiding citizens. It worked for me. Now we'll get to read pages of posts of cop-haters advice...
5c0++ H4d13y
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 6:02 a.m.
@Heardoc You might like these videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Heardoc
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 5:36 a.m.
Police are necessary in our society -- but we must always be vigilant in supervising the police. There have been many problems with the local police departments--- and these are the ones that made it to the media. I understand the author is very pro police but i am rather pro citizen. We need to view police not in the light f purity but in the light that they are really no different than the population that they serve. This means that police commit crimes -- and that the police need to answer to an independent citizen review board when the citizenry makes a complaint. I have yet to read anything critical of police by this author. As far as the interview process -- it sounds like a con artists at work. The police attempt to make you feel comfortable to talk to them and give them something of value (a confession as opposed to money). Police have the right to lie to you. i have always told my children to be courteous to the police but to never speak to the police -- you can never really trust the police.