Newsletter - Policetraining.net

Innocent Suspects' Response to Interrogation

by John Reid & Associates

The process of interrogation is reserved for suspects whose guilt is reasonably certain. This assessment may be based on a combination of forensic or testimonial evidence implicating the suspect in the crime, circumstantial evidence revealing the suspect's opportunity, access, motive and propensity to commit the crime, or the suspect's behavior, e.g., going into seclusion following the crime, catching the suspect in a known lie, etc.

At John E. Reid and Associates about 80% of suspects who are interrogated provide a corroborated, trustworthy confession.1 We believe that many of the remaining 20% of suspects are guilty of the crime but simply resistant to legally permissible interrogation tactics. However, some of those suspects were deemed by the investigator to be innocent of committing the crime resulting in the termination of the interrogation. This web tip addresses the typical behavior of an innocent suspect during an interrogation.

To understand the innocent suspect's response to interrogation it is important to consider that prior to an interrogation, the investigator has spent 30 or 45 minutes interviewing the suspect. This interview is totally non-accusatory and the suspect does most of the talking. Because of this format, a rapport or trust has been established between the investigator and suspect. On the other hand, during the interrogation of the suspect the investigator does most of the talking. The interrogation represents an effort to persuade the suspect to tell the truth about involvement in the crime under investigation. These persuasive efforts cannot involve threats of consequences or promises of leniency.

Initial Response

When an innocent suspect is initially accused of committing a crime, at the outset of the interrogation, it would be typical for the suspect to reveal indications of disbelief and confusion. On the verbal level the suspect may offer an unequivocal denial as the following dialog illustrates:

I: Joe, our investigation clearly indicates that you are the person who broke into your neighbor's home. I would like to sit down with you so we can get this clarified, OK?

S: That's crazy! I never broke into their house or stole anything from them!

Sometimes however, because of the rapport that has been established between the suspect and investigator during the interview, the innocent suspect will not immediately offer a strong denial following the direct confrontation. Rather, his initial reaction will still be one of disbelief as the suspect patiently waits for the investigator to explain why it is that he thinks the suspect committed the crime.

Early Responses

Even if the innocent suspect offers a denial following the direct confrontation, it is typical of the suspect to sit back in the chair and listen to the investigator for several minutes. In the suspect's mind, he is trying to figure out what went wrong - "Why does the investigator think I committed this crime?"

During early stages of the interrogation, however, the investigator does not present any evidence of the suspect's guilt. Presentation of real or fictitious evidence implicating the suspect in the crime is a possible tactic reserved for later in the interrogation, in response to denials typical of a guilty suspect. Rather, during early stages of the interrogation the investigator attempts to encourage the suspect to accept a concept called a transition statement. An example of a transition statement is, "What will be very important to establish in this case is why this whole thing happened." In an effort to reduce the moral seriousness of the offense, the investigator will then offer the suspect face-saving justifications for committing the crime. These justifications are termed an interrogation theme.

After listening to the investigator's theme for a several minutes the innocent suspect realizes that the investigator is not offering any evidence or explanations as to why the investigation indicates the suspect's guilt. Consequently, the suspect will lean forward in the chair in an aggressive posture reflecting confidence and certainty - he is no longer willing to allow the investigator to dominate the conversation and falsely accuse him of involvement in the crime. The suspect's eye contact will be direct and appear resentful. The investigator will then hear a denial.

Evaluating the Suspect's Denial

This is such a critical stage of the interrogation that an entire step of the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation is devoted to handling a suspect's denial. Because both innocent and guilty suspects will offer denials during an interrogation, the first objective is to evaluate whether the denial is typical of an innocent or guilty suspect.

The innocent suspect's denial will often be broad and all-encompassing, e.g., "I've never accepted a bribe in my life!" It is also typical of the innocent suspects to use descriptive language during their denial. Examples of descriptive language include "rape", "steal", "rob", "molest" and "murder."

On the paralinguistic level, the innocent suspect's denial has a very characteristic delivery referred to as the use of "clipped-word" endings. Each word of the statement is delivered in a staccato and separated fashion, e.g., "I - did - not - break - into - that - house!" This is a good indication that the suspect is experiencing sincere resentment at being accused of committing the crime, i.e., the suspect is innocent.

Certainly some innocent suspects have less confidence than others; some innocent suspects are introverted, non-emotional or adhere strongly to a belief that it is wrong to challenge authority. Regardless of these intrinsic personality differences, once the innocent suspect offers a denial, he will be persistent in his position. He does not sit back in his chair and entertain the possibility that he may have committed the crime for a morally justifiable reason. Rather, his denials become stronger and stronger and transmit the same message - "You are wrong. I didn't do it!" It may take ten or fifteen minutes, but eventually all innocent suspects will offer persistent, strong, definitive denials.2

Attempts to Terminate the Interrogation

A non-custodial suspect is free to leave the interrogation room at any time. A suspect who is in custody merely has to say, "I don't want to answer any more questions" or, "I want an attorney." If those or similar phrases are uttered by a custodial suspect, the interrogation must be terminated.

However, from a behavioral perspective, the suspect who, upon being confronted with his guilt, immediately leaves the room or invokes his Miranda rights is revealing a clear symptom of guilt. Innocent suspects will remain in the room, argue their innocence and offer strong and persistent denials. Even after the investigator is convinced of the suspect's innocence and goes through a process called, "stepping down" the interrogation, the innocent suspect remains in the room to make certain that the investigator understands that suspect was in no way involved in the offense.

Conclusion

Investigators are not perfect and the process of rendering opinions of guilt or innocence during an investigation is not an exact science. Because of this, innocent suspects will occasionally be interrogated. Critics have tried to suggest that when most innocent suspects are told that there is no question they committed a crime and then are falsely told that evidence implicates them in the crime, that they collapse in the chair, put their head in their hands and blurt out a full confession. As anyone who interrogates on a regular basis can attest, this is certainly not true. However, innocent suspects do respond differently to the interrogation process than guilty suspects. When a suspect's behavioral response to the interrogation fits the description of an innocent person, the investigator should "step down" the interrogation and consider terminating it altogether.

1 In our office we rarely have specific physical or forensic evidence implicating a suspect in a crime prior to an interrogation. When such evidence does exist, the confession rate would likely be higher.

2 This statement assumes that the suspect does not suffer from a significant mental or intellectual impairment and that the investigator did not engage in improper interrogation techniques that threatened consequences or offered promises of leniency. 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.

It Could Happen To You---Does Your Agency Have Your Back?

By Trinka Porrata

Drug Consultant & President of Project GHB

Retired LAPD (25 years)

So you go out for an evening with friends, planning to have just a couple of drinks. But something goes terribly wrong. You lose hours of time, behave bizarrely and wake up with a life quite changed. You have been drugged---for sexual assault or robbery or credit card fraud—but your strange behavior or the results of your behavior have taken center stage. You wake up in a hospital, a holding cell, a jail cell and you or someone else could be seriously injured……or dead. Will the responding agency and/or your own agency recognize that YOU are a victim? Or will your job be on the line due to their blindness to drugging issues? Will your agency have your back? Maybe not.

Odds are that you will remain the suspect, not the victim, even as the “investigation” plays out. Granted, if your behavior resulted in tragedy to others such as a DUI with injuries or fatalities, it is a complex issue. But underlying circumstances should not be overlooked. Mitigating circumstances can be very real. And, I hate to say it because I truly hate to play the sex card and seldom do, but the truth is “especially if you are female.” Based on numerous officer-involved cases I’ve been contacted about, the sad truth is that internal investigations often aren’t impressively thorough on this topic. Even efforts to “cover” for you may backfire and actually prevent the truth from prevailing.

I can’t emphasize it enough----The single most outstanding feature of the several officer-related cases I’ve examined is this total lack of addressing the drug issue.

For example, a supervisor from your agency responds to a call from another agency, thinks he’s got your back and brushes aside any effort to have you provide a urine, blood or breath sample or at least delays testing as long as possible. A breath sample might have demonstrated that you were NOT intoxicated on alcohol, which should prompt testing for drugs. Even with a high blood alcohol level (since you might engage in wild drinking once drugged) shouldn’t prevent taking the right sample for possible drugging—urine. And time is of the essence, especially if you were drugged with GHB, a drug that dissipates rapidly from the body (four hours in blood; twelve hours in urine).

What I typically see in these cases is that testing isn’t done timely, if at all, and despite the individual’s protests at some point that they may have been drugged the investigation rarely actually addresses the drugging possibility. There is typically no discussion of the effects of drugs, how they would (or would not) fit into the equation, etc. Drug Recognition Expert officers are typically not used as a resource even when the agency has a DRE Unit. Worse yet, the one time that drugging was addressed, it was without valid knowledge of drugs and their effects. Top that off with the fact that the investigator and supervisors up the approval chain may take the word of “witnesses” over their employee, even one with a stellar record. In fact, that reliable witness (i.e., the bartender) may be the suspect.

---An off-duty female officer at a concert stood in line to order two LIGHT beers, chatting with the men beside her while her friend stood off to the side. When her beers came up, she took one, stepped over and handed it to her friend. When she turned back for her beer, it was handed to her by one of the men she had been talking with in line. Access. She soon behaved wildly and was thrown out. She was not detained or identified (correct spelling of her name, etc.) but they did know she was an officer from a neighboring agency. Her friend finally managed to get her to leave as they requested. In the morning, stunned by awakening with no idea why she had missed the concert, her friend filled her in. She contacted her supervisor within the 12 hours needed for a urine sample for GHB which fit the symptoms perfectly. Her boss brushed it off since she wasn’t arrested. Days later the other agency reported it, much too late for testing. A mid-level supervisor investigated her allegation that she was drugged and said “she claimed she was drugged by a club drug but my investigation on the Internet concluded that a club drug would have made her act like…………..” and he proceeded to describe MDMA (aka Ecstasy) and thus concluded she was lying. She was given 10 days off which she appealed. But the term “club drugs” involves a variety of drugs with a wide array of symptoms. In fact, the most telling part of his report was that the security manager said “it was the most bizarre concert we’ve ever had. We had to throw out 40 or so people for bizarre behavior.” Yes, because someone was going around with a jug of GHB! My question to the chief during arbitration was, “So if this male officer’s house gets burglarized, how many days off does he get?” He looked stunned, hesitated, and finally said, “Ah, well, he’s a victim.” Indeed, and so was she.

---An officer working undercover becomes bizarrely intoxicated and is punished for the behavior, despite protests that she didn’t drink that much. No evaluation was made as to whether or not drugs were involved.

--An off-duty officer has a couple of drinks and as she is leaving is offered a drink on the house. It doesn’t taste right, and she doesn’t finish the drink (it doesn’t take much). She doesn’t recall leaving the location, behaves wildly at a second location and is picked up by the local agency. Her own agency picks her up and transports her home. No one does a drug evaluation on her. No one has her provide a breath or urine sample. In fact, she is told that if she thinks she was drugged, she should go to her own doctor on Monday (two days too late) and prove it. Oh, and there is this big charge on her credit card. She is fired for the conduct and at no time did the agency address the effects of drugs. In fact, they assume she is the liar, not the person who had access to dose the drink and who benefitted from the result.

---A female probation officer is out with another female and they are not watching their drinks. She pays her bar tab and heads to the bathroom, planning to return and leave with her friend. She doesn’t recall past the moment of turning to go the bathroom. Her next recall is in a police station as she is being released. She is told that she was in the car with two men. The driver was arrested for DUI; the passenger was sent home in a cab. She was semi-comatose on the passenger’s lap, too drunk to be put in a cab so she was arrested for drunk in public in a vehicle. During booking, she acted insanely, shrieking like a wild animal and then cursing wildly as she came out of it. She has no “video” of meeting the men, leaving with them, being arrested with them or being booked. She tried to make a report the next day and the female detective first agreed there should be a kidnapping report. The detective talked to the arresting officers who were annoyed by her behavior and the detective simply told her “we’re just going to leave it like it is.” The drunk in public charge was thrown out by the judge. Meanwhile her agency aggressively pursued punishment. Ultimately the drugging was addressed, only after the expense of an attorney and arbitration. She was given her back pay and reinstated. The arbitrator admonished the agency for their failure to do a thorough investigation and simply going for the jugular.

These are summaries of a few of the cases I’ve encountered.

It can happen to anyone. An off-duty officer well versed on drug issues accepted a drink from a stranger who recognized him as an officer and wanted to honor him with a drink. He “knew better” but drank it, walked out and headed home. He said there was ONE moment of recognition. He doesn’t recall pulling to the curb, but fortunately he did. His brain got him through it. He snapped out of it a few hours later, realizing just how lucky he was that there was even one moment of recognition which prevented him from driving on and killing himself or someone else. He didn’t report it but certainly learned a stunning lesson from it.

A study released earlier this year by SAMHSA, using 2009 emergency room statistics, reported that indeed drugging of people’s drinks does happen. It cited 15,000 cases of drugging. The researchers were most stunned that in fact it happens to many men as well as women and for a variety of purposes—sexual assault, credit card theft and sometimes literally just for laughs. Forty percent of the documented victims were male.

Now consider the fact that most drugging incidents don’t even get reported. Any sexual assault is difficult to report but it is even harder for victims to come forward when they don’t know much about what happened, may be quite confused as to what was real from their fragmented memories, don’t have a clue who or how many suspects were involved, etc. How would someone report just being drugged and acting weird and being taken home by their friends to sleep it off? What agency would even take a report if not definitely raped or robbed? Sometimes sexual assault is indeed the intent but friends intervene or the suspect loses them in a crowded bar and gives up (leaving the victim to drive away in a fog and get arrested for DUI or whatever). And being left by friends to sleep it off can be a death sentence if indeed they were drugged by GHB as they may lose their gag reflex at one stage, begin to vomit and aspirate, literally drowning in their own vomit.

More than 50 drugs (including illicit drugs, prescription drugs and some over-the-counter products) have been identified in DFSA cases. These predatory drugs create a variety of symptoms, with the most focus on amnesia, intoxication and physical impairment, which may or may not include periods of unconsciousness. Hallucinogens are also considered predatory drugs. While they produce a differing range of symptoms, the key is impairment that prevents one from protecting oneself and prevents one from being able to give or withhold consent for sex.

Be sure your agency has the knowledge to properly investigate such cases. Because if an agency can’t help one of its own, are we doing the best possible job for Jane or Joe Public if it happens to them? A criminal who drugs someone’s drink shouldn’t get a free pass; drug symptom knowledge and thorough investigation can make all the difference no matter who the victim is. Don’t let it be you or someone you love.

Considerations for trainers contemplating their own training company

Reprinted from Law Officer

By R.K. Miller

Running your own training company can be incredibly rewarding. It isn’t easy and don’t expect to get rich, but if you want to help cops to improve their tactics and safety and you genuinely enjoy doing so, consider it seriously.

It’s a question I’ve been asked before: “How did you do it?” This could apply to a lot of things, but I’m not copping out to anything more than this month’s topic: How I started my training company. This question typically comes from instructors who want to do the same. For those of you who’ve reached this point in your instructional careers, I thought that this month it might be helpful to discuss my experience.

Why We Do This

My first piece of advice is to start with an honest status check: Why do you want to pursue such an effort? Is your primary motivation to help cops and others learn how to do things right? Or is it because you want to make money? If you’re thinking your company will bring in lots of “Benjamins” and “U.S. Grants,” then your priorities are off the mark. Especially during these tough times, expecting police departments or individual officers to pay good money for substandard or poorly motivated training is, frankly, unrealistic.

This undertaking can be very demanding on your time and your professionalism. Your commitment to quality training must be a priority. If you’re serious about this, realize as well that the job often involves telling officers what they need to hear—not just what they may want to hear.

No Credibility Gaps

Credibility is a must. The success of your business depends on it. Credibility is derived from, among other things, demonstrated hard work, experience in your chosen fields and a passion for training. (To draw an analogy, earning a college degree has a level of real accomplishment attached to it. But there are also people who lack this commitment and basically “buy” degrees over the Internet. There’s a difference between the two paths to obtaining a degree, just as there is with establishing one’s credibility.)

Your students will want to know that their instructor is the “real deal.” Cops are good at recognizing when credibility is lacking—or, worse yet, self-fabricated. If that’s the impression, many won’t attend. Others may attend and then recognize the instructor’s shortcomings. They won’t be back.

A resume should be a reflection of your credibility. It’s a foundational part of your business. This document represents what you’ve accomplished and your professional status. When you look at the resume, is it an honest accounting? Keep in mind that it should be built upon facts—not fiction. Those who can’t be honest with themselves, let alone the outside world, need not apply. This is not only unethical, it’s also unacceptable. Remember: At some point down the road, this career accounting will most likely be examined by someone with a critical eye.

Credibility also hinges on a solid, safe training record. Trainers—especially those involved in firearms programs and other “hands on” subjects—can’t expect to have a successful business unless they have a commitment to their students’ wellbeing. Good instructors are good risk managers, who look out for the students’ welfare. Let’s face it: Cops—and especially instructors—talk. Honestly, they gossip. That means that if instructors run a loose training program that isn’t focused on student safety, the word is gonna get out. Have a complacent attitude or just ignore safety warning signs and, again, the word is gonna get out. Sooner or later, your approach to training will become the topic of discussion. Safety matters. When someone Googles the company name or yours, the search should reveal positive comments about your approach to managing student risk as well as the quality of the training.

Taking Care of Business

Earlier, I used the term business plan. Although you aren’t going to launch a Fortune 500 company or be a contestant on The Apprentice, you should map out what it is you want to accomplish. If you have bucks to spend, then getting some professional advice could be helpful.

Here’s the truth of my own business. I more or less fell into the initial stages of a business plan rather than developing it in a thoughtful manner. It began when Phil Singleton (then the director of training for H&K) and the NRA’s Law Enforcement Training Manager John Recknor were each kind enough to hire me as an adjunct instructor with their respective companies. I learned a lot under the guidance of these two men. Eventually, I started hearing a voice in the back of my head saying, “You can do this.”

Once I decided to get going, there were a number of steps that proved right for me. The very foundation of this was to make sure my wife agreed. She had more business experience than I did, and I knew I’d need to rely on her sound advice. If you can, you should do the same. Additionally, this was part of our retirement plan. I enjoyed training before retirement and wanted to continue it into my “golden years.”

You can also start a business with a partner other than your spouse. My advice is to make sure that the relationship is sound and built on some commonly shared principles of mutual respect, trust and honesty. An ethical approach to doing business is a must. If there’s any doubt about creating such a business relationship, take some time to carefully reconsider before you engage in a legally binding partnership.

I’m No Attorney, But . . .

I’ll stop for a moment to remind you that I’m not an attorney. Consider consulting with a good one before you get started. When we decided to incorporate our business, we contacted a reputable lawyer to guide us through the process. There are a number of benefits but also some costs associated with such a structured step. However, I’d strongly suggest that you do so. Legal guidance will help you choose the right type of corporation and avoid other pitfalls.

You must also obtain a federal tax identification number for your company. There are many good reasons not to use your social security number. There’s no way to get around paying taxes. However, proper and honest bookkeeping will probably help you maximize legitimate deductions. We invested in an accounting software program to track income and expenses. However you do it, you must properly manage the money coming in and going out.

Looking at your long-term financial protection, I’d suggest company funds shouldn’t be commingled with your personal assets. There should be a separate company checking account used exclusively for business. A company credit card would also be an essential financial step. A company debit card usually works well too. In addition to receipts and invoices, such cards provide a back-up tracking of expenses.

Are You in Good Hands?

Firearms training and other forms of potentially injurious instruction will place your company in the liability food chain. Forming a corporation may provide a “financial shield” to protect from personal liability exposure should a lawsuit come your way. Understand that combining personal and corporate funds may allow a plaintiff to “pierce” this shield, winning an even larger and more personally damaging civil judgment. It could even become an issue of who’s going to live in your house.

Another aspect of corporate protection is liability insurance. Again, I don’t have all the answers, so you should contact a knowledgeable person to assist you. That being said, here’s what’s worked for me.

A personal liability policy is always a good idea in our business, but it’s equally important to have a company policy as well. When I started out with just firearms training, an easy fix was available through the NRA’s Firearms Instructor Insurance Program (www.nra.org). However, when I branched out to such courses as less-lethal instructor and diversionary device instructor classes, they were beyond that insurer’s scope.

I found the answer with Joseph Chiarello & Co. (www.guninsurance.com). Although their fees are competitive, the deciding factor was the good relationship that developed with a helpful account executive—Toni Rouse. She asked the hard questions about our training programs, but she also gave my company a chance to prove we were a good risk. That was a number of years ago. We’ve worked successfully together ever since. Recently, Chiarello added an insurance option for instructors conducting force-on-force training. Although there are other companies offering similar services, I’ve found a comfortable insurance “home” with the Chiarello folks, and that’s important. As you build your company, don’t overlook investing in proper insurance. A lawsuit is a tough process to go through. Doing so without insurance to back you up is even worse.

Common Thoughts

At the suggestion of our editor, I contacted a veteran trainer—Jim Glennon—who’s also been down this road. A retired police officer, Mr. Glennon has been training cops since 1991, so he has some level of experience with this month’s topic. His business plan evolved after he wrote a well-respected book on interaction skills for law enforcement titled Arresting Communication. His training abilities led to his involvement with the Street Survival seminars and eventually his own company, Lifeline Training (www.lifelinetraining.com).

While we talked, I found that we shared similar views on law enforcement training and starting a business geared toward teaching cops. One of his first thoughts gave me an indication of his maturity: He credited his wife, Lisa, with being the financial brains behind Lifeline’s success. Beyond that, Glennon shared some solid advice. First, one of your company’s goals should be to offer classes that make sense for cops. Mr. Glennon drew from business legend Peter Drucker: You must provide a product or service that’s necessary and create a situation in which people want it.

(Editor’s note: I’ve had the privilege of co-presenting with Jim Glennon and can attest to the quality of his training. Glennon and Lifeline Training have become key partners in the Below 100 effort, and we’re very appreciative of their efforts.—Dale Stockton)

Less is More

The second “pro tip” Mr. Glennon shared was the importance of developing a relationship with the students that will lead to your recognition as a quality training provider. To accomplish this in the early days, Mr. Glennon would present seminars at a reduced cost or even tuition-free. He pointed out that since he started, there hasn’t been a class that didn’t generate additional business. That’s part of a successful business plan.

Another important point that Mr. Glennon touched on was the choice of instructors. He has a number of other trainers he works with. They have to be “dynamic” in their ability to deliver quality training. But they must also be talented people who really know what they’re doing. He reciprocates by doing his best to not overburden them with bureaucratic rules and procedures.

We’ll Be Back
Law enforcement needs great trainers to keep officers prepared for a difficult job. If you’re up for the challenge, I hope this article helps get you started down the road to business success. Next month, we’ll continue the discussion. Until then, train safe. God bless America.