Interview Before Interrogating

By John Reid & Associates

Throughout our seminars and textbooks The Reid Technique emphasizes the distinction between interviewing and interrogating, and the importance of conducting a non-accusatory interview before an accusatory interrogation. A recent legal decision reinforces this lesson:

A food court cashier rang up a customer's purchases for several food items, but the customer did not have sufficient cash to pay for the purchase, so the cashier voided the transaction. The customer went to a service counter inside the store to pay the difference with a credit card and returned to the cashier, displayed his credit card receipt, and paid for the remaining items in cash. Surveillance cameras appeared to show the cashier accepting $31 in cash, but voiding out the sale.

Three days later the cashier was summoned to the manager's office and aggressively accused of stealing thirty-one dollars from the store (the amount of the voided transaction). The accusatory interrogation, involving three loss prevention staff who threatened the cashier with possible arrest, lasted for two hours before the emotionally distressed employee stomped out of the room. The cashier was suspended for three days for "acts of dishonesty."

When the cashier returned to work she was informed that further investigation cleared her of any wrong-doing, but by then the damage had been done. She sued her employer for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings, slander, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Had it not been for a delayed filing in this case, the outcome could have resulted in substantial damages against the employer and/or investigators.

In Hollywood the typical police "interrogation" consists of asking the suspect two or three questions, catching the suspect in a known or presumed lie and going in for the kill by accusing the suspect of committing the crime. Especially when a suspect has been caught lying or in a web of circumstantial evidence it is tempting to get the quick confession by skipping the interview and moving directly into an interrogation. However, in almost all instances, an interrogation should be preceded by a non-accusatory interview. In addition to avoiding the situation in which an innocent person is interrogated, the following are other benefits of conducting a non-accusatory interview prior to any interrogation.

Develop Rapport

A suspect's impression of an investigator will be formed within 15 - 20 seconds of meeting the investigator. That initial reaction will, in turn, influence whether or not a rapport will be established between the investigator and the suspect. To persuade a suspect to tell the truth during an interrogation requires that the suspect trust the investigator and perceive the investigator as an objective, non-judgmental person.

This rapport cannot be developed in a relationship initiated by an accusation of guilt followed by a monologue in which the investigator dominates the conversation. In other words, rapport cannot be established during an interrogation. It can only be established during a non-accusatory interview during which the investigator is perceived as an objective, non-judgmental fact-finder and the suspect does most of the talking.

Develop Investigative Information

Because an interview is non-accusatory, a suspect is much more likely to reveal opportunity and access to commit the crime, a motive to commit the crime and even psychological propensity to engage in criminal behavior. However, once a suspect is accused of involvement in criminal activity, he perceives the relationship between himself and the investigator as adversarial. His defensive response will be to deny any information that may connect him to the crime under investigation. An investigator is much more likely to learn the truth from a suspect during an interrogation if the suspect has acknowledged opportunity, access, motive and propensity to commit the crime.

 Furthermore, when accused of wrong-doing, the tendency to deny opportunity, access, motive and propensity occurs within both innocent and guilty suspects. Consequently, when a suspect lies about having a prior conviction during an interrogation, this represents a less significant indicator of guilt than when the suspect tells the same lie during a non-accusatory interview.

Another significant benefit of conducting an interview prior to an interrogation is that the suspect is allowed an opportunity to offer an explanation for incriminating evidence and to provide an alibi, if he has one. The investigator may have an opportunity, through a phone call or record check, to confirm or refute the information provided by the suspect. If the information does not check out, this will clearly offer the investigator valuable ammunition during the interrogation. 

Develop Behavioral Information

Suspects are very good at identifying an investigator's level of confidence during an interrogation. Most suspects can tell if an investigator is bluffing about possessing evidence or speaking truthfully. Consequently, the investigator who is perceived by the suspect as confident in his position and statements is much more likely to walk out of the interrogation learning the truth. This is a significant reason why polygraph examiners have high confession rates - they have observed the suspect's "deceptive responses" on the polygraph charts. Similarly, investigators who have actual evidence of a suspect's guilt are often successful at learning the truth during an interrogation. The reason for this is that in both instances, the investigator conducts the interrogation with almost certainty of the suspect's guilt.

The asking of behavior-provoking questions during an interview can result in the same effect. When a suspect answers the majority of behavior-provoking questions in a manner typical of a deceptive individual, the investigator has increased confidence in the suspect's guilt during the interrogation.

Finally, an investigator may develop information about the suspect's background, such as a prior conviction, or that the day after the crime the suspect paid his landlord two months back rent in cash. Armed with this insight, the investigator can ask the suspect questions during the interview to which the answer is already known, e.g., "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?"; "Have you made any large cash payments in the last week?" An innocent person will typically tell the truth to these questions. However, if the suspect lies to those questions the investigator will have increased confidence in the suspect's probable guilt during a subsequent interrogation.

In conclusion, the interview is an integral part of the subsequent interrogation. It allows the investigator to establish rapport with the suspect. The suspect is much more likely to offer investigative information during the interview, and the investigator can develop behavioral information during the interview which will increase his confidence in the suspect's guilt later during the interrogation. Finally, the interview allows the suspect to offer explanations for apparent incriminating evidence or provide an alibi which can be verified (or refuted). The lawsuit mentioned at the beginning of this article could have been completely avoided had the investigators first interviewed the employee.

Check out the free Eight new PowerPoint presentations from John E. Reid & Associates

http://www.reid.com/newmedia/

 

What Slowed Me Down: A Cautionary Tale About Excessive Speed
 

As I sat outside the courtroom awaiting my turn to be questioned in front of the Grand Jury, a million things ran through my mind It’s no secret that more cops have died in car crashes than from bullets in the last ten years. All too often the reasons for those crashes are excessive speed and driving beyond the capability of the driver and vehicle. For some the only way to find out what those limits are is to exceed them, sometimes with tragic results. Unfortunately, for a lot of cops what finally gets us to slow down is an incident that threatens to end our careers and sometimes our lives. That type of experience can take many forms. In my case, it was a Grand Jury The Dust, the Darkness, the Speed It was a hot humid August night at around 0230 hours as the squad car traveled down the highway. Off the side of the road in a field a pickup truck could be seen tearing around the alfalfa, kicking up dirt as it spun in circles. The squad slowed and the brake lights activating apparently warned the passengers of the pickup truck that the attention of the law had been drawn to their joy ride. The suspect vehicle immediately headed to the closed dirt road and fled the scene at an increasing rate of speed. Any doubt of wrong doing was now cast aside, the red lights and siren were activated and the pursuit was called in. The fleeing suspects swerved off one side of the road and then the other, apparently piloted by a drunk driver. The drought conditions made it difficult to keep the vehicle ahead — as well the road — within view in the clouds of dust. The fleeing driver was far more familiar with the country road. The dust, the darkness, and the speed all conspired to hide the “T” intersection sign. The fleeing suspect, his reactions slowed by his intoxication (later determined to me more than twice the legal limit), failed to brake fast enough to make it around and through the intersection. With his brakes locked he slid off the road and down into the wheat field that lay well below the level of the road. When the vehicle came to a stop he and his passengers threw their doors open in an attempt to flee the scene, as they had done on previous occasions. With no warning that the road was about to end the squad left the elevated road and started to fall down into the field, the pickup truck would alter its’ decent. The front right tire and underside of the squad slammed into the tailgate of the pickup truck causing the squad car to then vault up and to the left, just as the driver stepped from the cab. All that could be heard was the squad car slamming into the top of the driver’s door as it cleared the rest of the truck. With the brakes applied and the undercarriage seriously damaged it still took a long distance before the squad finally came to a rest. A frantic call to dispatch was made. Following a run back to the truck, the officer found the driver down, not breathing. His girlfriend was fighting to be near him, preventing any first aid attempts. Another passenger was fleeing on foot, carrying a package our informants would later tell us contained cocaine. A second officer arrived on scene and was finally able to handcuff the girlfriend and drag her to his squad car despite her screams, struggles and at least one kick to the officers’ face. CPR was started. A third officer arrived and was sent out looking for the suspect who had fled into the nearby woods. He would find nothing. The ambulance arrived a short time later and transported the downed driver to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The autopsy would determine he was killed by a blow to the back of his head by the front bumper of the squad car. So Help Me God The State investigators would interview me and the others involved in this incident. I would assist in the recreation that would be videoed by them. Despite their investigation that determined no wrong doing, the County Attorney insisted on convening a Grand Jury. As I sat outside the courtroom awaiting my turn to be questioned in front of the Grand Jury, a million things ran through my mind. God, I did not want to be there. God, I was glad it wasn’t me looking at potential criminal charges. God, I felt so sorry for the officer involved. God, I was glad I was the third officer on the scene. God, let me make it clear to the Grand Jury that the officer did nothing wrong. God, it could so easily have been me. God, I felt so guilty being glad it wasn’t me. My name was called and I entered the courtroom knowing that what I said could determine if criminal charges would be brought. I raised my hand and promised to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. The Grand Jury returned a No Bill so there wouldn’t be any criminal charges against the officer. With time the death threats against him made by the deceased friends and relatives would also pass. The officer soon left the jurisdiction for a previously planned transfer and has had a long and productive career. As expected, a civil suit was filed by the family of the deceased. At trial a settlement was offered but the family turned it down. The jury would end up awarding an amount of money that was significantly less than the offered settlement — what the state’s attorney would describe as “a pittance.” A Lasting Impression That incident left a lasting impression on every person involved. It made me more cautious and it changed the way I drove. I was traveling south when a northbound vehicle approached. I estimated it to be well over the 55 mph speed limit. The radar indicated 85. I tried to get turned around quickly but traffic slowed me. The violator vehicle took a left onto another road. I accelerated to catch up, activating my red lights and siren. The road went out into the county. I continued to accelerate up toward 100 mph, calling in to dispatch. A deputy would head toward me on the same road from about 10 miles away putting the suspect between us. The road was flat with no traffic, my only concern would be a deer running out in front of me. It was night and I didn’t have much of a description of the vehicle. I continued to attempt to catch the vehicle advising dispatch that despite my speed the tail lights ahead of me seemed to be gaining distance. Every mile or so I’d come to an intersection. I slowed at each one and made sure there it was clear of oncoming traffic. That didn’t help me close the distance. I knew the flat paved surface would turn to gravel in a short distance. All I had was a speeding vehicle. Sure, it could have contained some real criminals, maybe even the deceased drivers’ buddy hauling another load of coke, but I notified dispatch and terminated the pursuit at the end of the pavement. Some cops would have kept going. Before the Grand Jury I probably would have kept going, but the thrill of the chase had lost much of its thrill. I was willing to chase the ones I could catch but I wasn’t going to chase for the sake of chasing anymore. I made the decision to always drive as safely as I could, bearing in mind the risk of the pursuit weighed heavily against the benefit of the apprehension. What happened next would cement those concepts in all my future pursuits and call responses. Two days later, another officer was backing the same squad car up when the front right tire fell off. I wondered what would have happened if the tire had fallen off going down that gravel road at pursuit speed chasing a speeder. Would it have been worth it? God, I was glad. Since then have I had people get away from me? Yes, but they usually were arrested later. If they get away, that’s ok too, because you can’t catch them all. Since then I haven’t had any close calls, no near misses, no need to try to regain control of the squad car in a panic moments and I have arrived at all my calls safely and in time to deal with the situation. God, that feels good.

About the author Duane has been a Minnesota Peace Officer since 1988, serving as patrolman, sergeant, S.R.T., Use of Force and Firearms Instructor, and is currently employed by the Parkers Prairie Police Department. He is also a full time instructor in the Law Enforcement Program at Alexandria Technical College, Alexandria, Minnesota. Duane has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Bemidji State University, and a Masters Degree in Education from Southwest State University. Duance has previously published articles on Calibre Press and IALEFI and served on the Advisory Board for Lt. Col. Dave Grossmans book, On Combat. Contact Duane Wolfe

 

   

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page

 

Image credit: kzenon / 123RF Stock Photo
Image credit: kvv515kvv / 123RF Stock Photo
Image credit: fberti / 123RF Stock Photo