My columns hope to provide some in-depth insight of methods used in criminal investigations. This particular June 15th 2004 question is one most asked by fellow authors and readers. "When does the interview of a suspect become an interrogation?"
"The moment I arrest you're a-- -!" might be the response of some fellows or gals in any squad room. The same statement might be found attributed to the protagonist/hero (or antagonist/villain) police detective in your favorite mystery novel.
The judges in our courts as one would expect would meter out their answer. They have determined the words interview and interrogation to be historically synonymous in the language of some past law enforcement officers. A police interview was deemed a straight interrogation. Therefore, it is a mandate of our judicial system any alleged perpetrator (or in the hard-boiled genre: perp) is to be informed that s/he could have an attorney present during an interview. The 'Miranda warning' was established in law enforcement to insure this Constitutional right of any individual.
Our informed suspect is now asked, "Do you mind answering some questions?"
Invariably, MOST people including our "perp" say, "Sure."
Surprised? Asking for the presence of an attorney or "lawyering up," a supposed tough-guy phrase heard on TV and read in crime novels, isn't an option for the majority. In the real world of a police investigation most people cooperate with law enforcement. Wouldn't you?
The innocent reasons s/he has nothing to be concerned with by answering the questions of the investigators. "I've done nothing wrong. Why wouldn't I answer their questions? I have nothing to worry about, Detective."
But do they?
The guilty rationalize not participating in the interview concludes that s/he might appear guilty to the police investigators.
In a friendly and non-accusatory manner, the detective commences the interview with the most pertinent data necessary to the investigation. Who? What? Where? Why? When? How?
The investigator is not only listening to the responses. Was that a lisp? The detective observes the alleged suspect's speech patterns, body language, mannerisms, etc. For continuity purposes our detective has decided to repeat one of the previous pertinent questions.
The individual hesitates then pronounces his/her considered answer.
Should our detective pursue this hesitation? Could it be as innocent as loss of focus or maybe…? Then there is always that piece of evidence connecting "your guy" to the crime? Now, this is an interrogation!
Play it safe!
Dennis J. McGowan
Authors! Don't hesitate. Now is the time to send your questions to ReadersRoom2@aol.com. or
www.dennisjmcgowan.com
Copyright 2004 by
ReadersRoom, LLC. All rights reserved.
