METHODS

OF
INTERROGATION
 INTERROGATION

Interrogation is defined as “a guilt-presumptive process”. It is a

theory-driven social interaction between an authority figure and
suspect. The dynamics include an authority figure who strongly
believes that a suspect is guilty, and extracts an admission from the
suspect (Kaison, 2006). This can cause investigator bias even in the
innocent suspect. “Research has found that once people form a
belief, the selectively seek and interpret new data in ways that verify
the belief. This distorting cognitive confirmation bias makes beliefs
resistant to change, even in the face of contradictory evidence”
(Nickerson, 1998). It is vital for the investigator/interrogator to remain
open-minded during the course of the investigation.
 Miranda Rights

The Miranda warning states that “the admissibility of statements made during
"custodial interrogation" under the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-
incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel. Under Miranda, prior
to interrogation, a person in custody must be told of the right to remain silent
and the likelihood that statements made by the person will be used against him
or her in court” (Miranda, 1966).
When a suspect is being interrogated for a crime, they should always be
“Mirandized”. Police officers should ask the suspect if they know why they are
there. If the suspect does not know, or says something totally unrelated to the
alleged crime, then the interrogator should tell the suspect why they are there.
Investigators/interrogators will ask the suspect questions and the suspect
typically will answer whether it is truthfully or deceptively; instead of exercising
the fifth amendment of potentially self-incriminating themselves. Police officers
are held to a high standard and understand that many people are not aware of
how the criminal justice system operates.
 Coercion and the Power of
Suggestion

Investigator may utilize a common tactic used to obtain

confessions; coercion and the power of suggestion by asking the
suspect what he was thinking about when he committed the crime.
The officers continued with this tactic asking where he put the knife
he used to commit the crime and the suspect states that he doesn’t
remember. A common statement made by suspects who are being
accused of something they didn’t will begin to go from disbelief of
being accused, to confused, and then to submission. The power
imbalance between suspect and the authority figure-the
investigator plays a significant role in many false confessions.
 Signs of submission—when the
suspect is ready to admit
Submission comes in many forms. When a suspect is ready to admit/confess to something
include signs of giving up; telling the officer what they want to hear. This may be revealed
through body language, expressions, and gestures; verbal and other non-verbal cues and
may show submission or giving up. Signs of submission may include a heavy sigh, a sudden
change in the arms; such as dropping the arms to their sides or lay them in their lap after
tensely crossing the arms initially; sudden silence and intently listening to the investigator,
lowering of the head, the sound of their voice may become meek, quiet, unfolding arms and
legs; and telling the investigator that they don’t remember. Telling the investigator that they
don’t remember is also a sign that the suspect is innocent, especially if the officers have kept
the suspect for long periods of time without a break, food, water, threats, and constant
interrogation either by one or many officers. The suspect becomes psychologically drained,
confused, and begins to believe that they must have done something. “ Educing information
from an individual requires some understanding of how people in general acquire, process,
store, and retrieve information. Without this knowledge, it is possible to misinterpret or even
contaminate stored information so that not even the source/suspect can any longer discern
the “real truth” (Kassin, 2006).
 The movement from submission
to admission
The officers used the integrated interrogation technique. Also known as: FALC- “FA
+ L = C (Force of Assertion plus Leverage yields the Confession); The FA (Force of
Assertion) represents the force of the positive and convincing statement the
interrogator uses to assert his sense that the suspect is guilty; The L (Leverage)
represents real or imagined evidence. It is the weight of the physical or psychological
evidence obtained from the FAINT, polygraph charts, actual or potential forensic
evidence, or the testimony of eye witnesses, etc. When FA and L are strong, the result
is usually C (Confession)” (Gordon & Fliecher, 2006). In the given scenario an
eyewitness did put the suspect at the scene of the crime; however we do not know if
the eyewitness is correct; FA and L. The officers show the suspect photos of the crime
scene and of the victim- FA and L. The confession typically follows. In this case the
lengthy interrogation is considered not only coerced but unethical for interrogation
practices today. I would be concerned about the sincerity of the confession due to
the inappropriate police interrogation practice that was presented in this case
scenario.
Acceptance of accusation or assumptive questions
and the development of admission

The investigator is looking for the

“breakthrough” that comes just before the
admission. The investigator worked the steps to
get to a confession. Depending on the technique
used, they all use similar tactics. For example “
The Integrated Interrogation Technique
maximizes the interrogator's ability to obtain a
confession from the guilty suspect. According to
Gordon and Fleischer the following techniques
are key factors in obtaining a confession:
Integrated Technique:

1. Make a forceful assertion that the

suspect is guilty.
For example, the interrogators will tell the suspect that he
was a suspect in the rape and murder and an eyewitness
placed him at the scene.

2. “Do not allow the suspect to deny

the act”.
According to Gordon and Fleischer, “Ninety percent of suspects will
at some point begin to deny their involvement. The more the suspect
is allowed to deny the act without contradiction, the more the
suspect's lies are reinforced” (Gordon & Fleischer, 2006). For
example, the suspect said over and over that he did not do it.
Integrated Technique:

3. Offer a series of possibilities of

how and why this may have happened.
explain why the crime may have been committed. He should go from possibility to
possibility, until the suspect appears to show an interest in a scenario, and then expand
upon that possible explanation” (Gordon & Fleicher, 2006). For example, the
investigator told the suspect to imagine what he would have done with the weapon.

4. Undermine the person's self-

confidence.
All deceptive suspects are afraid of what evidence they may have left, or may turn
up, which will prove they committed the crime” (Gordon & Fleischer, 2006). For
example, the investigators asked the suspect what he was thinking when he
committed the crime. This not only undermined the suspect, but was used as a
coercive, persuasive tactic, that when used in vulnerable individuals can have
devastating consequences if they are innocent, potentially leading to a false
confession and the suspect may begin to believe what the investigator is saying.
Integrated Technique:

5. Offer persuasive arguments for

telling the truth

6. Offer solutions, where possible, to

alleviate the person's fear.
 Integrated Technique:

7. Compliment the person.

The interrogator wants the suspect to admit to the crime and
talk about his “dark” side. This is a way to build a rapport with
the suspect and help the suspect feel comfortable talking about
the crime s/he committed.
8. Use alternative and leading
questions.
“By asking alternative and leading questions the interrogator makes
it much easier for the suspect to admit his guilt” (Gordon &
Fleischer, 2006). For example, the investigator does not allow the
suspect to deny and asks the suspect to imagine what he did with
the weapon. This is not only a leading question, but a coercive
technique.
 Integrated Technique:

9. Watch for the “buy” signs.

The buy signs may include “sudden silence, listening attentively to what
the interrogator is saying, dropping of the head and shoulders showing
the nonverbal signs of submission” (Kaison, 2006). Submission can leave
a person vulnerable. The power imbalance of the interrogator and the
suspect is significant. The submissive individual will often begin to
believe what the more “powerful” person is saying; potentially as a result
of self-confidence, the inability to assert themselves, afraid of authority
figures, or police in general, age, IQ, mental or physical disability, and
fear. Some suspects will confess simply to tell the interrogator what
they want to hear simply to end the interrogation session, thinking they
have no proof and they would be found innocent. When in reality it’s
quite the opposite. The judge and jury often wonder why a person would
confess to something they didn’t do.
 Integrated Technique:

10. Move in close and press for the

confession.
“When the interrogator notes the “buy” sign she must move in closer and
ask for the sale” (Gordon & Fleicher, 2006). When the suspect continues
to say he doesn’t remember, and says he must have done it, the
investigator knew he had him; hook, line and sinker. On the other hand,
this statement is a verbal cue that the suspect may have been coerced
and confessed as a result of coercion and the power of suggestion. From
submission to pressing the suspect will almost always lead to a
confession, true or false confession. The authority figure is in the
dominate position and the suspect in the submissive position, a perfect
recipe for confession and doing what the dominate person wants
including confessing.
The process of closing the interrogation in a
professional manner

All suspects should be treated with respect before,

during and after the interrogation. “Guilty until
Proven innocent” is the way of the American
criminal justice system. The investigator should
thank the suspect for his/her cooperation and for
doing the right thing. On the other hand, if the
suspect is innocent which I believe may be in this
case, this will only reinforce the admission of guilt
by the suspect by way of believing they are guilty.
Thank you
for listening!
JOSHUA A. REYES
BSCRIM
CDI