By John Reid & Associates

A recent Frontline episode dealt with interrogation techniques and false confessions.¹ The presented case involved the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Bosko from Norfolk, VA. The following is a synopsis of facts as reported by Frontline:

The victim's husband, who was a sailor in the navy, discovered her body and sought help from the next door neighbor, a fellow sailor named Daniel Williams, who then contacted the police. While the husband had an air-tight alibi, suspicion focused on Williams. Therefore, they asked him to come to the station for a voluntary interview which eventually turned into an 11 hour interrogation. During the interrogation, Williams was administered a polygraph examination which he was falsely told indicated deception. After being threatened with the death penalty, Williams confessed to the rape and murder to avoid execution. In his initial confession he stated that he struck the victim with a shoe and beat her to death. Following the autopsy it was determined that the victim died from stab wounds and strangulation. Williams was re-interrogated and, after the detective revealed the victim's actual cause of death, gave a second confession consistent with the autopsy findings.

Four months later, the crime lab determined that Williams' DNA did not match crime scene evidence. Rather than doubt the integrity of Williams' confession, the police were convinced that there must have been another perpetrator. Williams was again interrogated and threatened with the death penalty if he did not name his accomplice. He named Joseph Dick Jr., a fellow sailor who was given a polygraph examination which he purportedly failed, and threatened with the death penalty if he continued to lie. Believing that he would be exonerated based on DNA evidence, Dick confessed to helping Williams rape and murder Michelle Bosko. When the DNA analysis came back negative, Dick thought charges against him would be dropped. Instead, the investigator was convinced that there must have been a third person involved in the crime.

By this time Dick was represented by council who was convinced, based on Dick's confession, that his client must be guilty. The defense attorney recommended that Dick cooperate with the police to avoid the death penalty. Dick provided the name of another accomplice, Derek Tice, who was subjected to lengthy interrogations (after his request for an attorney was ignored) and threatened with the death penalty. Like the others, Tice confessed. However, the crime scene DNA did not match Tice so he was re-interrogated to find out who else was involved in the crime. Tice selected the photo of a sailor named Eric Wilson who also was persuaded to confess, but whose DNA also did not match the crime scene. This cycle was repeated until eventually seven sailors were named as being involved in the murder of Michelle Bosko. Despite the fact that none of the seven defendants' DNA matched crime scene evidence, all were charged with the rape and murder. During the course of the trials, Dick backed out of a plea bargain, and refused to offer testimony against the latter three defendants. Because his confession and testimony was the only evidence implicating these defendants, charges against them were dropped.

Before the first of the four remaining trials began, a woman approached the police with a letter she received from an inmate named Omar Ballard. Ballard was serving time for beating a woman in the same apartment complex where Michelle Bosko lived, and raping a 14-year-old girl two miles from Bosko's apartment complex. In the letter, Ballard confessed to killing Michelle Bosko. Ballard was questioned by police and, in a short period of time, confessed that he alone raped and murdered Ms. Bosko. Ballard's DNA matched the crime scene DNA.

The prosecution had to either acknowledge that the police obtained four false confessions or somehow attempt to reconcile all of the evidence, which is the path they chose. The theory presented at trial was that the seven sailors wanted to rape and murder Ms. Bosko but couldn't get into her apartment so they approached a stranger, Omar Ballard who agreed to get them into her apartment and commit the crime with them. As part of a plea agreement Joe Dick testified against Eric Wilson and Derek Tice, both of whom were found guilty and sentenced to 81/2 years and life in prison respectfully. After realizing the futility of persuading a jury that their confessions were false, Williams and Dick both plead guilty and received life sentences.

In 2007, after reviewing legal appeals, the Virginia Governor granted conditional pardons to Williams, Dick and Tice (Wilson had already been paroled). A team of attorneys is still working to clear the names of what the media has called the "Norfolk Four." If the information presented by Frontline is accurate, certainly there is a high probability that these four confessions are false.

Why Did the Norfolk Four Confess?

These suspects were adults suffering from no diminished mental capacity and were not deprived of basic biological needs. The length of the interrogations (8-11 hours) were substantial, but not so long as to automatically cause a false confession. This is especially true considering that, reportedly, more than an hour was spent in prepping the suspects to give an audio-taped confession that was consistent with the current police theory. Lying to a suspect about failing a polygraph examination certainly would not cause an innocent suspect to confess. While the interrogator was described as intense, tenacious and unrelenting this, in and of itself, would not be apt to cause an innocent person to confess. The other tactic common to each interrogation was that these four suspects were threatened with an inevitable consequence -- each of these suspects reported that he confessed to avoid the death penalty.

The standard rule of thumb relating to improper interrogation techniques is that the investigator should not offer the suspect any threats or promises. In this context, threats are often thought of as threats of physical harm, isolation or deprivation of biological needs. There is, however, a much more powerful threat that can be made during an interrogation -- threatening the suspect with inevitable consequences. These four suspects were offered the most potent threat possible - the threat of death i.e., "If you continue to lie about this you will die. Do you want to die? That's what will happen if you continue to tell me you didn't do this". This was then coupled with the promise of life, i.e.., "I can help you out on this thing. If you tell me the truth I will work it out so you will not face the death penalty. You will be able to live." Who in their right mind wouldn't accept life over death?

When an innocent suspect is convinced that he is helpless to avoid consequences of a crime (a long prison sentence, having children placed in foster homes, being deported to a foreign country, having a license or certificate revoked, etc.) this suspect will do anything in an effort to reduce those perceived consequences. As illustrated by this case, when threatened with inevitable consequences, innocent suspects will not only confess, but adjust their confession to please the interrogator (Dick offered seven different statements) and testify against defendants the suspect knows are innocent.

Concepts within the Reid Technique have been criticized under the guise of threatening inevitable consequences. Specifically, interrogating a suspect on the presumption of guilt, discouraging denials from surfacing and the use of an alternative question, e.g., "Did you plan this out for months in advance, or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?" These criticisms are baseless. Expressing high confidence in a person's guilt certainly would not motivate an innocent person to believe that it would be in his best interest to falsely confess. Rather, the innocent person would be motivated to more strongly maintain his innocence or terminate the interrogation. Similarly, discouraging a suspect from voicing denials will cause the typical innocent suspect to become more forceful in their denials or terminate the interrogation, not to believe that because the interrogator is not accepting their denial that it would somehow be in their best interest to confess.

Finally, it has been argued that the alternative question forces the innocent suspect to incriminate himself. Nothing could be further from the truth. A suspect always has a third choice which is to reject the alternative question and maintain his innocence. None of the tactics or techniques within the Reid Technique would cause an innocent person to believe that they would benefit by offering a false confession. However, this is not the case when a suspect is threatened with inevitable consequences, which is why we are adamantly opposed to this interrogation tactic.

The case involving the Norfolk Four was rife with failures within the criminal justice system. The police department was negligent in allowing the detective, who had a reputation for unethical practices, to conduct these interrogations. The detective was eventually convicted of multiple counts of extortion and lying to federal law enforcement agents. The prosecutor stubbornly refused to acknowledge that four uncorroborated confessions were probably false. A defense attorney failed to challenge a confession his client claimed was false because of coercion. The prosecution's primary case was built on confessions and testimony from individuals who were motivated to avoid the death penalty. Interestingly, when the prosecutor offered Ballard a d
eal to avoid the death penalty if he testified that the other four defendants committed the crime with him, he refused. The lesson from the Norfolk Four is clear: threatening a suspect with inevitable consequences has no place in a properly conducted interrogation.


1 The Confessions, PBS 2010 Credit and Permission Statement: This Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc. Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy the article. For additional 'tips' visit www.reid.com; select 'Educational Information' and 'Investigator Tip'. Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be directed to Janet Finnerty johnreid@htc.net. For more information regarding Reid seminars and training products, contact John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. at 800-255-5747 or www.reid.com.

 

  Practical Steps For Reasonable Police Crowd Control

The “Occupy Movement” is really a precursor to the near future for many of our police agencies. There are many other forms of protest we should expect to encounter: political demonstrations, union protests, sports celebratory events, immigration rallies and other protests of governmental actions.

We shouldn’t forget the lessons learned in the 1960s during the civil rights movement and Vietnam protests. We shouldn’t simply rely on our new equipment and force tools.

There are five continuing issues that rise up from our recent encounters with crowd control: officer/agency attitude, unlawful assembly response, arrest provisions, use of force, and mass arrest protocols. These are the issues that have become the focus for civil actions against police agencies.

Officer and agency attitude is displayed whenever we engage in crowd management and control. It’s imperative that we leave our personal beliefs at home when we’re assigned to crowd control. Many times our beliefs will be directly opposite those that we’re going to be facing. We should be the good guys. We must be impartial in our response to these various crowds. There is no place for officers to put tape over their nametags. We must keep our mouths in check even when talking amongst ourselves. Our job becomes much more difficult when the crowd believes we’ve taken sides.

Every state has a provision for declaring an unlawful assembly. There are four essential elements that should be met in declaring a demonstration as an unlawful assembly. The first is to issue the declaration in a manner that you can record and document so that everyone affected could have heard the announcement. That means you need to have officers stationed at the furthest parts of the demonstration. Next you need to give the demonstrators a specific amount of time to pack up their belongings and leave. You need to give them the routes you want them to use when leaving. Those left behind are now committing a misdemeanor. Now those left behind can be arrested; not forcibly driven off with chemical agents and batons.

Arrest provisions, even during mass demonstrations, are still guided by Graham v. Conner. Demonstrators not leaving are engaging in civil disobedience and most want to be arrested. Now if the demonstration turns into a riot endangering the public or mass destructive vandalism occurs; our tactics will change to protect the general public and personal property.

So we’re now going to arrest those demonstrators who have elected to remain. They are now committing a misdemeanor; probably not the most serious of crimes. What’s reasonable? Of course it depends on the level of resistance presented. Expect verbal antagonism; it’s not another crime under these circumstances. Expect that some will try to make our arrest procedures more difficult by locking arms or using locking devices. Some will actively resist by twisting and turning. Others may assault you. Each of these levels of resistance should be anticipated. We can reasonably respond to overcome these types of resistance and affect the arrest.

You’re going to be on television and the Internet. How do you want to be depicted? We’ve got all the time even if it’s overtime. Now is the time to slow down the arrest process and proceed methodically. Move in to each arrestee or a small group of arrestees and verbally seek compliance. If they resist we have placed them on notice and now can use force to get them to comply. This is the time to have each arrest team’s conduct videotaped by our photographer. You don’t want to rely on the hundreds of smart phones and hand held devices in the crowd of onlookers.

Another issue to consider is how to document any normally reportable use of force. No current written force policy says that there is an exception to the force reporting policy when engaged in crowd control. When you assemble for crowd control you need to conduct an inventory of your chemical agents and impact rounds. If you don’t, Internal Affairs is going to be very busy reviewing hours of video and Internet footage.

Mass arrests can be difficult; but they’re impossible without a protocol. The essential aspects are to match up the officer observing the violation and making the arrest. Without this match the prosecution is unrealistic and it ends up looking like we simply were jacking up the demonstrators. An unplanned mass arrest procedure will also end up looking like we were simply trying to punish the arrestees for their demonstration by forcing them to wait unreasonable hours for processing. There are other examples of degrading misconduct in mass arrest situations. Forcing arrestees to wait in locations without restroom facilities and requiring them to relieve themselves on the floor or in prisoner transport vehicles. Writing booking numbers in black markers on the arrestees’ forearms. These forms of abuse cannot be condoned.

The digital age today makes mass arrests easier. Officers can mark their flex cuffs with their serial number. The videotaping of the arrest can serve to identify the arresting officer. You might consider using an IPad or even a blank slip of paper to record the officer with the arrestee. It might seem easier and more cost effective to simply have one officer be the arresting officer for all arrests, but it will backfire and cost your agency much more than overtime in the subsequent civil lawsuit.

It’s time to dust off those contingency plans from years ago. Maybe they’ve been throw out, outdated or don’t exist. You need to start planning now so you don’t get caught short when you encounter your next demonstration.

SEE ALSO:

Law Enforcement Administrative Investigations, 3ed ($49.95 + shipping)
A Supervisory and Agency Guide To handling citizen complaints of misconduct, conducting administrative investigations, managing the Internal Affairs Function, creating reasonable and defensible discipline.

TRC491: Use of Force, Legal Update & Best Practices ($50 + shipping)
53 Minute Recorded Video of Webinar Presentation (Microsoft Windows® Media .wmv format)
Instructor's PowerPoint® Presentation in electronic format
“Use of Force 2nd Edition" by Jack Ryan, Printed Manual

The Law and Best Practices of Successful Police Operations, 2ed ($59.95 + shipping)
The most comprehensive law enforcement LIABILITY and BEST PRACTICES manual in the country!
Includes over 360 pages of best practices and critical task liability issues for law enforcement.

2010-2011 Legal Guide for Law Enforcement ($15 + shipping)
A comprehensive legal guide for critical task in law enforcement, outlined in this easy to read and understandable flip guide. 4 x 6, spiral bound and indexed for quick reference, 149+ pages.

   

By Dr. Dorothy McCoy

http://www.PersonalityOne.com 

I met Chief Michael Carroll of the West Goshen Police Department (Pennsylvania) at The South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy Testing and Measurement Conference in November of 2006. Chief Carroll impressed me as a man of honor and a police executive who could make the hard decisions that are inherent in law enforcement.  I decided to call Chief Carroll and talk with him about police ethics. Chief Carroll said ethical behavior is taught when we are children and because of that early training we either think ethically or we do not. However, he believes that we can teach officers to be Ethically Responsible, that is, to behave in an ethical way. We can say to officers, “here are the rules that govern ethical behavior, we expect you to follow them.”  If we discuss behaviors we simplify ethics to an observable phenomenon.. Either you accepted free dinners from the owner of the local diner or you did not. Easy.

Chief Carroll said that unethical officers are a curse on our profession and should be expurgated. He states, quite reasonably, that police executives should not be surprised when an unethical officer behaves in an unethical manner. In his department he would prefer to know as soon as possible if an officer is ethically challenged. In theory, officers can be saved if we identify their deviant behavior early in their careers before the hypothetical “point of no return.”  

When developing a procedure to handle unethical behavior it is important to avoid both “type I” and “type II” errors. A type I error is a false negative, in effect; we have decided that something is false and it is not. A type II error is just the opposite, it is a false positive. We have concluded that something is true and it is not. Many Americans believe that the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial was a Type I error.  In the last few years several inmates have been released from prison because DNA evidence has indicated that they did not commit the crime for which they were imprisoned. These individuals are victims of type II errors.

There should be safeguards in an agency’s ethical behavior procedures to protect the citizen, the agency and the officer. Few situations are sadder than a good officer forced to leave his/her agency after years of dedicated investment in his/her career. This can happen if the officer is falsely accused and dismissed. Conversely, we cannot allow unethical officers to besmirch their agency and our profession. Chief Carroll and I discussed this also. What if an executive does not publicly support his or her officer (who has been falsely accused), because it is not politically expedient to do so?  This would be an ethical violation by the police executive. Officer morale in such an agency would be abysmal.

The Pursuit of Ethical Behavior

The pursuit of ethical behavior is fraught with hurdles, barriers and perplexing complexity. During his presidency, President Jimmy Carter made the rather ill considered decision to give an interview to Playboy Magazine. In the interview he said, “I have lusted in my heart.” Though “lusting in his heart” may have been an all consuming theoretical dilemma for President Carter, it would not have constituted an ethical breach. If a thought has not been transformed into a behavior, it is not an ethical violation. Philosophers may argue this issue, nonetheless we cannot read thoughts, hence we are limited to observable behaviors.

Though we would prefer solid blacks and shimmering whites to clearly mark our ethical path, such definite, and easy to understand indicators seldom exist. We are left to choose the ethical course by way of consultation, investigation, education and reflection. Unfortunately, it may not be an straightforward process. If there is more than one individual in the process they may not be in agreement. In fact, the individuals who take the high ethical road may be in the minority. Also, they may be extraordinarily unpopular.

We can find definitions of ethical thoughts, beliefs and behaviors. We can also turn to guidelines that help us to reach ethical decisions. Once we understand and practice the fundamentals of ethical behavior, maintaining high standards requires constant vigilance and like-minded support.

Defining Ethical Conflict

Ethical conflicts arise when the actions of one person or a group of individuals interfere with the interests of another person, group of people, or the community as a whole. Unfortunately, ethical decision-making models, no matter how elaborate, cannot adequately portray the complexity of ethical dilemmas (FBI Bulletin, May 2002, Schafer).

Police Integrity

In the Carl B. Klockars’ (et al) book, The Contours of Police Integrity, he states that integrity is more that the recognition of “bad apples.” This approach recognizes the importance of three distinct efforts:

• Organization rule making
• Detecting, investigating and disciplining rule violations
• Circumscribing the code

Organizational Rule Making

“In a police agency of integrity, police officers ought to know the agency’s rules that pertain to integrity, understand the agency’s rational for them, and come to 

believe in the rightness of both” (p. 7) Written rules are of little value if no one practices them.

Detecting, Investigating and Disciplining Rule Violations

“In a police agency of integrity, the occupational culture of the agency will support the discipline of officers who violate agency standards of integrity” (p. 7). Historically this rule has been limited by the character “loyalty” and the emotion “fear. “

“If all my friends were to jump off a bridge, I wouldn’t follow. I would be at the bottom to catch them when they fall."  What a profound statement; unfortunately, I don’t know who said it. It may appear, if a fellow officer commits a breach of ethics, that we have only two choices and those choices are mutually exclusive: 1) Commit to helping him disentangle himself or 2) Support Administration or Internal Affairs and abandon the officer. I think the quote gives us at least one other choice. We can choose to be entirely ethical, yet (if possible) help our fellow officer through the ethical maze including the disciplinary process. We don’t have to agree with an officers’ behavior to be supportive.

Defining the Code

Administrators should define both what behaviors are covered by code and to whom the benefit of its coverage is extended

Dr. Dorothy McCoy
Personality One
http://www.PersonalityOne.com
Articles, Services and Quizzes
Publications
The Ultimate Book of Personality Tests
The Manipulative Man
From Shyness to Social Butterfly
919-304-1073

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page