in this issue . . . The Use of Follow-up Questions to Elicit Admissions   Report Highlights Special Risk of Undercover Police Work   TASER Use & Injuries

 By John E Reid & Associates

An earlier web tip offered guidelines to interpret a subject's verbal behavior (Sept. 1999). In addition to assessing the truthfulness of a response, verbal behavior also provides insight for asking follow-up questions. The fact that the subject's initial response to a question contains an identifiable behavior symptom often indicates that the subject is not comfortable telling an out-right lie. Under this circumstance, asking a follow-up question frequently results in an admission or further meaningful information.

Evasion

Many times a deceptive subject avoids an out-right lie to the interviewer's question through evasion. An evasive response relies on the interviewer making an unwarranted assumption as to what the subject meant to say within his response. Once a question is asked, there is a natural tendency to fit the response into a preconceived expectation of an answer. If the response does not directly answer the question, our mind fills in the gap and places the answer into a "yes" or "no" category, even though the subject's response merely implies a definitive position


As a young parent I asked my kids a series of questions just before they left for school. One of them was, "Have you brushed your teeth?" Invariably, I received an affirmative answer, which was the literal truth. However, over the years I have learned to follow-up that "yes" answer with the question, "Have you brushed your teeth today?" Oftentimes, this follow-up question resulted in the child rushing up to the bathroom to brush his teeth. There are numerous examples of evasive responses, but the following dialogue illustrates the basic formula for asking a follow-up question to an evasive response. That is, agree with the subject's initial statement but re-ask the question in its original form.

Q:		"Did you have sexual contact with your step-daughter?"
A:		"I consider her the same as a natural daughter. I can't believe she would say such a thing."
Q:		"I understand, but what I was wondering is whether or not you had sexual contact with your step-daughter?"
A:		"Sexual contact? No. I wouldn't consider it sexual contact."

A common mistake interviewers make in asking a follow-up question, under this circumstance, is to modify the initial question, often making it more specific. It is important to remember that it was the original wording of the question that caused the subject's behavior, and it is that question which should be re-asked. To illustrate this, consider the following interview of a father who sexually molested his step-daughter by rubbing his bare penis against her vagina:

Q:		"Did you have sexual contact with your step-daughter?"
A:		"I consider her the same as a natural daughter. I can't believe she would say such a thing."
Q:		"I understand, but did you put your finger in her vagina or fondle her breasts at all?"
A:		"Absolutely not! I can't believe that anyone would think that I'm a child molester!"

Memory Qualifiers

When a subject's response contains a memory qualifier such as, "I believe," "To the best of my knowledge," or, "At this point in time" it is often productive for the interviewer to re-phrase the original question as a hypothetical one. The following dialogue illustrates this:

Q:		"Did you leave your house at all last Friday night?"
A:		"Not as far as I remember."
Q:		"Is it possible you may have left your house last Friday night?"
A:		"Well maybe for just a short time. That's right. I did go to the store around 7:00."

Interviewers who have received training in asking a bait question should consider the subject's use of a memory qualifier as a good indication that if a bait question is asked addressing that activity, that the subject will acknowledge the activity. Subject's who incorporate memory qualifiers within their response are basically telling the interviewer, "If you can produce evidence that I did this, then I will acknowledge it."

Addressing Specific Denials

A response that contains a specific denial addresses only a narrow aspect of the interviewer's question. For example, if a job applicant was asked, "Have you ever been asked to leave a job?" a specific denial would be, "I've never been fired from any full-time employer." The interviewer needs to recognize what the applicant is not denying. In this instance, the applicant may have been asked to leave a position under a mutual agreement, which is paramount to being fired. A second possibility is that the applicant may have been fired from a part-time employer. It is, therefore, important to ask follow-up questions which address both of these possibilities. The following is an example of this, where the investigator wants to establish the subject's access to a handgun:

Q:		"Do you have any handguns in your home?"
A:		"I've never purchased a handgun in my life."
Q:		"Have you received a handgun as a gift?"
A:		"No."
Q:		"Have you received a handgun in trade for something else?"
A:		"No."
Q:		"Are there any handguns in your house that belong to someone else?"
A:		"Well, my dad has an old .45 from the army that he keeps here."

Clarifying Estimation Phrases

As the name implies, an estimation phrase offers a personal opinion usually as to length of time or how often something occurred. Often, deceptive subjects will use an estimation phrase to hide incriminating information. When a subject's response includes an estimation phrase, the interviewer should ask a follow-up question which suggests a more incriminating answer as the following examples demonstrate.

Q:		"When is the last time you've experimented with an illegal drug?"
A:		"It's been a long time."
Q:		"Have you used any this week?"
A:		"Oh gosh no. It's been 4 or 5 weeks -- ever since I started looking for a job."

Q:		"How often did you and your wife fight?"
A:		"Not that often."
Q:		"Would it be maybe three or four times a week?"
A:		"No. Maybe twice a week."

Q:		"When is the last time you saw Linda?"
A:		"It's been quite a while."
Q:		"Did you see her at all yesterday?"
A:		"No. I think it was two days ago."

This same follow-up technique can be used effectively when a suspect delays his answer to a direct question. A delay before answering a direct question often indicates that the subject is debating whether to tell part of the truth, or a complete fabrication. By suggesting an incriminating response before the subject verbalizes his answer, it becomes much easier for the suspect to tell part of the truth as the following dialogue illustrates:

Q:		"During your meeting, did your hand come in contact with your secretary's thigh?"
A:		"Um..."
Q:		"Were you massaging her thigh with your hand?"
A:		"Oh no. It was really just kind of a light touch and I didn't mean anything sexual by it."
Q:		"How long would you say your hand was on her thigh?"
A:		"Let's see ..."
Q:		"Was your hand on her thigh during most of the meeting?"
A:		"Oh gosh no. Ten, maybe 15 seconds at the most."

Subjective Terminology

An interview question should be phrased in such a way as to transmit a single, clear meaning. Therefore, it would be improper to ask a subject, "Did you engage in internal espionage against the United States." This is an ambiguous question because it requires (or assumes) that the subject knows what espionage is and that he can differentiate between internal and external espionage. Consequently, a subject who sold classified information to a foreign company may experience little anxiety when denying this ambiguous question.

Similarly, when a subject's response contains ambiguous terminology, the interviewer must not assume that the subject is attaching the same meaning to words as the interviewer. Therefore, when a subject incorporates subjective, technical or legal terminology within a response, the interviewer should either have the subject define the meaning of the word, or pursue the area with questions that transmit a single, clear meaning.

Returning to the examples under Evasive Responses, the first dialogue concluded with the following statement by the subject, "Sexual contact? No. I wouldn't consider it sexual contact." This response contains subjective terminology (sexual contact) and requires clarification. Because the response implies some contact, an appropriate follow-up question to ask at this point may be, "Tell me about the contact you have had with your step-daughter's vaginal area?"

In the second example, within this same section, the subject responded, "Absolutely not! I can't believe that anyone would think that I'm a child molester!" The term "child molester" is obviously subjective and will be defined quite differently by a Child Protective Service investigator than a father who is having sexual contact with his step-daughter. When a subject uses descriptive or legal language within a response it is often productive, as a follow-up question, to have the subject define the term. In this instance, the subject may describe a child molester as a person who abducts children and forces them to engage in perverted sexual acts. Conveniently, of course, this definition does not apply to the compliant, non-invasive sexual contact the subject had with his step-daughter.

The Universal Follow-up Question

The easiest lie to tell is one that is based on a partial truth. This is especially effective if the truth is somewhat incriminating. Too often, once an interviewer hears the subject make an admission against self interest, the answer is accepted as the whole truth. This is rarely the case. Consequently, our final suggested follow-up question is what we call the universal follow-up because it applies to many possible responses during an interview. Very simply, once a subject makes an admission against self interest, the investigator should ask the same question excluding the admission, e.g., "Besides for that...", as the following dialogue illustrates:

Q:		"Has your driver's license ever been suspended?"
A:		"Unfortunately, yes it was. Back when I was 17, I had too many speeding tickets and it was suspended for three months."
Q:		"Besides for having it suspended when you were 17 has your license been suspended any other time?"
A:		"Actually, there was another incident which is kind of complicated because it involved a DUI where it was suspended for six months. But I have it back now and everything is straightened out."
Q:		"Besides for those two occasions, has your license been suspended any other time?"
A:		"There was just one other time, again for a DUI, and that one was for 12 months. I just got my license renewed last month, which is why I'm applying for a driving position."

Many suspects who lie during an interview escape detection by offering minor admissions which the interviewer accepts as the whole truth. Returning to some earlier examples, under Memory Qualifiers, the universal follow-up question to ask in this dialogue would be, "Besides for going to the store, did you leave your house any other time that night?" Within the dialogue for Specific Denials, an appropriate follow-up question to ask is, "Besides for that .45, do you have any other handguns in your home?" The rule, simply stated, is that anytime a subject's response to an interview question contains an admission, no matter how insignificant, the universal follow-up question should be asked.

In summary, when a subject's verbal response contains a behavior symptom indicating possible deception, the interviewer should pursue the area with follow-up questions in an effort to learn more of the truth. Through experience, we have found that the follow-up questions suggested in this web tip are often beneficial in developing admissions or more meaningful information.

  

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT (New York Times)

Nearly one in five undercover officers in the New York Police Department said they had been in confrontations in which they were mistaken for suspects by fellow officers — and found themselves suddenly staring down the barrel of a loaded weapon.

Skip to next paragraphIn those situations, an overwhelming number of those officers said that the key to surviving was to remember a basic training lesson that can easily be forgotten in the heat of the moment: do not move a muscle.

As part of its comprehensive review after the shooting death of an off-duty officer by another officer in May, the Police Department surveyed more than 200 of its undercover officers in an attempt to gain insight into these type of confrontations.

Of those officers, 33 said that they had been involved in gunpoint confrontations with other officers. In more than 80 percent of those situations, the undercover officer’s decision to remain motionless was seen as the key to defusing the confrontation. However, many of the undercover officers said more training was necessary to ensure they were not shot.

The finding was perhaps the most telling in a 14-point plan to avoid officer-on-officer shootings laid out in a letter from Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly to Gov. David A. Paterson. The letter was an update on the department’s response to the death of Omar J. Edwards, an off-duty officer who was mistakenly shot by Officer Andrew P. Dunton, who had mistaken him for a criminal. A copy of the letter was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.

In June, Governor Paterson formed a task force to examine confrontations between on-duty and off-duty officers and the role that race may have played. The task force held its first public hearing on Nov. 17 in Albany; it is scheduled to convene in Harlem on Thursday.

The Police Department did a historical analysis of the 10 instances since 1930 in which an officer died because of mistaken identity and found no pattern in the racial makeup of the officers involved, according to the letter. (Eight of the 10 officers were off-duty when they were shot.) The department has retrained all of its officers on how to avoid mistaken-identity incidents, the letter said. And the department has also hired an expert to study the effect of racial bias on its officers, and to develop new training methods.

Some police officials said it was not surprising that so many undercover officers had had guns pointed at them by uniformed officers, because those in undercover work are supposed to appear to be criminals. Undercover officers assume false identities to blend in on the street and often buy drugs and guns. They are different from plainclothes officers, who do not pretend to be criminals.

“With each passing day, the officers become better at perfecting the art of playing the roles of criminals,” said Eugene O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “The consequence of the officers becoming so good at blending in is that they are more likely to be mistaken for real criminals.”

All officers are taught that if another officer pulls a weapon on them, they should not move. Undercover officers are even instructed that if they are apprehending a suspect, they should let the suspect go if they believe that doing so will prevent the other officer from firing. The officers are also taught to not reach for their badges or guns, and to not turn their backs.

Tom McKenna, a former detective who retired in 2000, said that officers once pulled guns on him while he was trying to arrest a suspect. He said he was off duty at the time and wearing street clothes.

“I heard the sirens of the police car so I knew they were coming,” Detective McKenna said, recalling the incident, which he said took place on the Upper East Side in 1996. “I didn’t move. Why would I move? Who the heck moves when a cop has a gun pointed at you?”

Mr. McKenna added, “It was a nonissue. I was a guy in civilian clothes with my gun out. I had my back to them so I didn’t move. I simply told them where my shield was and I put my gun down.”

The letter said that the department sought input from fraternal groups like the Guardians Society and the Hispanic Society. The groups offered 36 recommendations, including a new badge holder that the department is developing. It will be made with reflective material so a plainclothes officer can be identified in low light.

In July, the department hired Joshua Correll, a professor at the University of Chicago, who studies racial bias in police decisions. He tested all the recruits who entered the Police Academy in July to determine their levels of racial bias. The recruits are scheduled to be measured again on Dec. 18, to determine what effect academy training has had on “shoot/don’t shoot situations.”

Police departments that use "stun" devices like the Taser and other "less lethal weapons" such as pepper spray can expect to see rates of injury among suspects and officers drop dramatically, according to the first federal government-backed analysis of multiple police department arrest records.

As less lethal weapons rose in popularity and availability during this decade, local police departments tended to develop their own internal policies governing them, the study's authors note in their report in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health. The Department of Justice funded the study, one of several it says it will use to determine which "use of force" policies allow police to work most safely.

One concern of Amnesty International and other Taser critics is that police are more likely to use Tasers in situations that would not have called for physical force. That could mean that even if the injuries sustained by suspects are less severe than those they would have sustained during the use of other physical force, there are more injuries overall.

At least 350 people have died after they were Tasered, according to Amnesty International. It's unclear why, but in many well-documented cases, the victims were highly agitated, drugged, or had chronic medical conditions. Taser International says that the device's barbs cause skin punctures, and if used improperly, Taser fire can cause subjects to fall from a height or injure the face or groin.

"If you just do a simple comparison between cases where they use a less lethal weapon and those where they don't, you get the impression that the weapon causes injury," said John MacDonald, a criminologist at the University of Pennsylvania who led the study.

To make their comparison more meaningful, the authors took a number of factors into account. In particular, they compared the number of times police had conflicts with suspects when officers had Tasers to when they did not.

Police usually resort to Tasers and pepper spray in more dangerous situations where injuries are more likely to occur, MacDonald said. In comparing records of more than 24,000 police officer and suspect conflicts from 12 different police departments, MacDonald and his colleagues found the risk of injury to suspects apprehended with less lethal weapons typically fell more than 60 percent compared to the risk to suspects who were arrested without the devices, when all other conditions were similar.

(Police department records did not specify the type of conducted energy weapon being used, but given Taser International's market share, MacDonald believes 90 percent of the devices were Tasers.)

MacDonald's team zoomed in on the Orlando, Florida and Austin, Texas police departments, because they both had records before and after the implementation of less lethal weapons. Orlando's rate of suspect injury dropped 53 percent after the Taser rollout, and officer injuries dropped 62 percent. The impact in Austin - where the Tasers were phased in slowly -- was smaller but still significant at 30 percent less for suspects and 25 percent less for officers.

Taser International spokesperson Stephen Tuttle said his company - which had nothing to do with the new study -- is thrilled by the new scientific support. "Taser has taken it on the chin for a number of years," Tuttle told Reuters Health. "This is really a watershed for Taser in terms of finally getting some actuarial, epidemiological data out there to show that Tasers are really reducing injuries."

One heart specialist who has studied deaths linked to Tasers said he still thinks all agencies who use Tasers should have automatic external defibrillators (AED) on hand in case it is necessary to restart suspects' hearts. "The study does nothing to examine the harm side of the Taser equation (as our study did), only the benefits side," Zian Tseng, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote Reuters Health in an email. MacDonald said requiring an AED in the back of every police cruiser would be disproportionate to the risk. He said that physical force "is much more likely to cause injury and death. For the average case where someone is struggling, Tasering is better than getting hit with baton or a flashlight."

Still, "if there are other less lethal devices that people can invent that can cause even less harm that's great," he said.

SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health, December 2009.

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page