Watching a YouTube video today I was reminded of a Supreme Crout case that basically says that the police can use deception in the furtherance of justice. This sounds odd, until you realize that undercover cops very existence depends on deception.
Once upon a time, I was able to take a class on fingerprinting. As past of that class, we had to learn to lift prints off of various surfaces and process them on a latent card for later analysis. As part of the class, I made a latent card of my own fingerprints. That card found its way into my briefcase.
When interviewing a suspect, I might lay that card on the table and make no reference to it. It was just there, along with case notes and a tablet for notes. Invariably, the suspect's eyes were drawn to it, and as long as the suspect said nothing, neither did I. If he asked about it, I'd dismiss it. They were, after all, my fingerprints. But he didn't know that.
The suspect would look at the latent card, and I'd notice him looking at it, and I'd ask if had anything he wanted to tell me. I made several cases with that card laying on the table.
At trial, or an evidentiary hearing, the attorney might ask if we had collected any fingerprints, and I would always answer "No". Because we hadn't.
Was that a deceptive practice? Only if he was stupid.
2 comments:
Reminds me of one of the strategies of the "Reid Technique of Interview and Interrogation."
Now that WAS sneaky. Kudos! Deception but not coercion. And for those who object to such, I'd point out that the innocent have nothing to fear because their statements hold up regardless. Only the guilty have reason to object. Deception does not change the facts of the incident. Seems the primary objection is when the suspect is young/juvenile and may be "tricked" into confessing though possibly innocent. Valid to a point, I suppose, but my old school mind thinks if you enter the game, . . .
Post a Comment