Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Interrogating minors; "best practices"
Topic Started: Jan 4 2016, 08:38 AM (216 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/ReducingRisksAnExecutiveGuidetoEffectiveJuvenileInterviewandInterrogation.pdf

RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICES:
JUVENILE INTERROGATIONS

[EXCERPTS]

These changes in the legal landscape mean that police officers must adapt.
In particular, officers who interrogate juveniles must not only observe
the same precautions they take with adults – providing food and water,
allowing the suspect to take bathroom breaks and rest when tired, and so on
– but they must use different and more appropriate interrogation tactics that
reflect the differences between adults and teenagers.
This is true even when the
juvenile is an older teenager.
These recommendations apply equally to interviews
and interrogations of youth for both serious crimes and minor delinquent acts
or status offenses.

(snip)

Presence of a Friendly Adult


It is essential to involve a “friendly adult” in the juvenile interrogation process and to allow him or her meaningful
opportunities to privately consult with the juvenile throughout the interrogation. Traditionally, the friendly adult is a parent or a youth officer, although each presents different challenges.

Time of Questioning

Officers should be wary of questioning juvenile suspects, especially younger teens and
children, in the middle of the night. Even a few hours of sleep deprivation, combined with the
stress of interrogation, can increase the risk of false confession. And courts tend to disapprove of late
night interrogations, particularly when children are involved.

Avoid Use of Deception

Currently, the use of deception during an interrogation – such
as a false claim that police possess evidence incriminating
the suspect – is permissible.

[drugs found at the house, someone else has confessed, etc...]


However, the changing nature of
the legal landscape should make officers think twice before using
this technique during juvenile interrogations. The presentation
of false evidence may cause a young person to think that the
interrogator is so firmly convinced of his guilt that he will never be
able to persuade him otherwise.

In that event, the young person may think that he has no choice but to confess – whether guilty
or innocent – in an effort to cut his losses. For this reason, one of the nation’s most well-known
interrogation training programs has discouraged the use of false evidence during juvenile
interrogations, advising interrogators to avoid such tactics with young children and individuals
who have significant mental limitations.

Avoid Promises of Leniency and
Threats of Harm


Many officers are trained to indirectly suggest during interrogation that the suspect will avoid
trouble or get help if he confesses. Even these indirect promises of leniency and threats of harm can be inappropriate when the suspect is
a juvenile. They can trigger involuntary or false confessions by presenting the juvenile with an
offer he can’t refuse: Say what the police want to hear or face negative consequences. A wellknown
interrogation training firm expressly advises investigators to avoid interrogations in
which a suspect is offered help:

In expressing sympathy and understanding toward a suspect during an interrogation,
it is tempting for an investigator to state that it is his desire to “help” the suspect in some way. This may be in the form of
an ambiguous statement, such as, “I want to help you out of this thing,”

[Gottlieb?]

or “I can’t help you unless you help me first.” In other
instances the reference to help may be quite specific, such as, “If you tell me what happened, I can get you psychological help,”
or “I can get you help for your addiction, if you work with me on this.” Some courts have ruled that such statements represent an
implied promise of leniency, and therefore, investigators should refrain from any references to “helping a suspect out.”1

In particular, many juvenile false confessors have explained that they confessed under the
mistaken belief that they would be able to end the interrogation and immediately go home. To
that end, interrogators must take special care toensure that nothing they say could be interpreted
as suggesting that the juvenile could go home if he confesses. An innocent youth might jump at
such a chance and falsely confess out of a desire to return home, believing that his innocence will
be straightened out later.

(snip)

Electronic Recording

When an interview or interrogation is electronically recorded from start to finish, police have a complete
record that can be used to convict the guilty and to ensure that every statement is reliable and voluntary.
A recording can also provide officers with invaluable protections against frivolous allegations
of abuse. And most electronic recording systems pay for themselves by greatly reducing the
need for and duration of costly pretrial hearings about what happened inside the interrogation room.
For these reasons, it is imperative that departments around the country videotape interviews and
interrogations from the reading of Miranda rights until the end.

Recording is particularly essential when the person being interrogated is a juvenile. The Wisconsin
Supreme Court, for instance, has required all juvenile interrogations to be recorded in their entirety,
when feasible, because of the particular vulnerabilities of juveniles during interrogations.

The same reasoning holds true in every jurisdiction. Rules mandating the electronic recording of interrogations exist
in 16 states and the District of Columbia and nearly every other
state is currently considering legislation.
In addition, with the proliferation of reality crime
television, the public and juries expect to see electronic recording at every trial.
Edited by Quasimodo, Jan 4 2016, 08:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Of course, none of this is relevant to the lax case, because

a) the accused were not essentially juveniles;

b) the DPD is a CALEA-certified dept., which means it follows the highest level of practice and performance; and

c) there were never any interrogations of the suspects anyway, making all of the above irrelevant



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
There were never any suspects...
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Currently, the use of deception during an interrogation – such
as a false claim that police possess evidence incriminating
the suspect – is permissible.


This is not right.

Every public school student should be taught a course in political science
and in that course every student should be taught this fact: that the police
are allowed to lie to a suspect during an interrogation.

I am confused: is the reading of Miranda rights required or not?

if so, the statement should be revised to state: if you give up your right
to remain silent, the police are allowed to lie to you during an interrogation.
Edited by MikeZPU, Jan 4 2016, 12:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walt-in-Durham

MikeZPU
Jan 4 2016, 12:50 PM
I am confused: is the reading of Miranda rights required or not?

if so, the statement should be revised to state: if you give up your right
to remain silent, the police are allowed to lie to you during an interrogation.
Only if the police and prosecutors want to use the statement in court. Miranda and its progeny are very specific, the rights apply only to custodial interrogations where the state seeks to use the statement in court against the maker of the statement. Otherwise, there is no requirement that the police ever advise anyone of their rights in civilian criminal courts.

Under the UCMJ, a completely different standard applies and the MPs are required to have the witness read into the record an advice of rights. This is called the read in document. The read in document pre-dates Miranda and includes all the warnings in Mirada and then some. That said, unless you are subject to the UCMJ this is not a civilian issue. The read in document is also required even in non-custodial situations. Another difference from Miranda.

So let's look at an example. Officer Friendly stops Mr. Defendant for weaving within the lane and having a broken tail light. Officer Friendly approaches the vehicle and as Mr. Defendant rolls down his window, Officer Friendly detects the odor of alcoholic beverages and marijuana smoke. At this moment, Officer Friendly had reasonable suspicion to make the stop - weaving within the lane and a broken tail light. He is developing probable cause (PC) for DWI and possession of marijuana, but he's not there yet.

Officer Friendly, pursuant to the department's General Orders asks Mr. Defendant to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. Mr. Defendant digs out his wallet and extracts his license. He hands it to Officer Friendly. He then coughs causing Officer Friendly to recoil from the odor of alcohol and marijuana. Mr. Friendly opens his glove box and spills the contents clumsily on the floor. (At this point, Officer Friendly has developed sufficient PC to make an arrest for DWI. Not sufficient evidence for a conviction, but PC.)

Mr. Defendant finally locates his registration and hands it over to Officer Friendly. Officer Friendly notes, as he expected the registration is overdue for renewal. The sticker on the license plate indicated the reggo expired in 2014. Mr. Defendant then begins to mess with his smart phone. Officer Friendly asks what he is doing. Mr. Defendant says his proof of insurance is on his phone. (Having seen a GEICO commercial or two, Officer Friendly accepts this explanation.) After a few moments where it becomes obvious that Mr. Defendant lacks the manual dexterity to punch in the four number PIN to unlock his phone, Officer Friendly asks the Defendant to exit the vehicle. (He now has all the PC he needs for a DWI arrest and a substantial amount of evidence if he wants to pursue the misdemeanor driving while impaired charge. Driving while intoxicated is going to require a little more evidence.)

Note, Officer Friendly hasn't asked the defendant any questions, and under the law, he is not under any requirement to offer a Miranda warning. There is a difference of opinion among the several states on this issue. Some, a large minority, hold that the flashing red and blue lights mean the defendant is in custody for purposes of Miranda and if the officer wants to use any statement in court, he must offer Miranda warnings. A slight majority differ and say the flashing red and blue lights are not sufficient to invoke Miranda.

Officer Friendly then asks Mr. Defendant to take a few field sobriety tests. As Officer Friendly is a fairly senior patrol sergeant he hasn't kept up with the latest training, so he has Mr. Defendant count backwards from ten - which he cannot do. He also has Mr. Defendant walk a straight line. Which he also cannot do. Finally, he takes Mr. Defendant back to his patrol car and gives him a portable breath test. The PBT is in no way admissible in court, but it is useful to develop PC. Mr. Defendant blows a .22% BAC on the PBT machine. Officer Friendly then decides he is arresting Mr. Defendant. He decides not to write a ticket for the equipment violation and send Mr. Defendant on his way.

Officer Friendly then locks Mr. Defendant's car and calls for a tow. He transports Mr. Defendant to the precinct where there is an officer on duty with the requisite training to administer a breathalizer test. The trained officer places Mr. Defendant in a holding cell within his view and waits 20 minutes. Then, he administers a breathalizer test and the machine prints out a .18%BAC reading. During that time, Officer Friendly writes up his report including the PBT and breathalizer readouts, the print out from the breathalizer machine and his own observations of the defendant's field sobriety tests and his observations of the defendant's operation of the vehicle and his interactions with Officer Friendly.

This is a text book DWI arrest that will stand up in court all day long. There was reasonable supspicion for the stop. (Weaving within the land, and the broken tail light.) There was PC for the arrest. (Smell of alcohol, a lack of manual dexterity, failing the field sobriety tests and the PBT.) There is good evidence of intoxication above the legal limit. (The breathalizer report.)

Worse for Mr. Defendant, when the car is towed to impound, Officer Lazy Lou who spends most of his tour sitting in the guard shack at impound decides that he will impress the SGT with his motivation and get the job done attitude. He searches Mr. Defendant's car where he finds a baggie of green leafy substance under the driver's seat, a baggie of white powdery substance under the passenger seat and two shotguns in the trunk with their barrels sawed off at 14". Officer Lou writes up an inventory sheet and sends it on to Officer Friendly.

46 hours after his arrest, Mr. Defendant is brought before the Durham County Magistrate, along with a couple dozen more pre-trial detainees from the Durham County Detention Center. Pursuant to state law and the U.S. Supreme Court's Riverside decision, the Magistrate then advises Mr. Defendant of his many rights, including those mentioned in the Miranda decision. Further he advises him that of the preliminary charges: Driving While Intoxicated, Driving Under the Influence, Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Cocaine and Possession of unlawful firearms, specifically two sawed off shotguns. The Magistrate asks the riding ADA if she plans on referring this to Federal Court. The riding ADA says that because there are only two shotguns, and the cocaine was far less than five kilos, she plans on prosecuting in Superior Court. But, she also advises the Magistrate that transfer to federal court on the shot gun charges remains an option to be decided above her pay grade. The Magistrate then asks Mr. Defendant if he has any questions. Unfortunately for Mr. Defendant, who has watched too many TV shows, he complains to the Magistrate about not being read his rights. The Magistrate, always courteous, explains to him that he was just read his rights as required by law and that anything else of a legal nature must be raised by way of a motion before the Superior Court Judge. He then asks if Mr. Defendant would like a Public Defender. Mr. Defendant asks for a PD, so he is told to go sit in the line before the deputy clerk for an indigency hearing.

Under this hypothetical, Miranda warnings were never required before the initial appearance before the Magistrate. It would have been different if Officer Friendly wanted to interrogate Mr. Defendant and use the statement against him in court. However, Officer Friendly had no need, he thought, to interrogate Mr. Defendant, so he did not. Now, being Mirandized, Officer Friendly, or Detective Not So Friendly may interrogate Mr. Defendant. Detective Not So Friendly will probably re-Mirandize Mr. Defendant when he interrogates him, but that's just to be on the safe side. He may not re-Mirandize immediately. He may begin the interrogation without a Miranda warning and give it later. But, it will surely be typed on the written pad used to obtain any written statement from Mr. Defendant.

Further, Detective Not So Friendly may decide that Mr. Defendant is small potatoes and really only worth a DUI in terms of convictions. But, that Mr. Defendant might be a worthwhile snitch. So he might ask Mr. Defendant to rat out who had the coke and the shotguns. In that instance, Mr. Defendant's statement can be used against his coke buddy and his sawed off shotgun buddy without the Miranda warnings. Just not against Mr. Defendant.

Hope this overly long answer is somewhat helpful.

Walt-in-Durham
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply