Ever heard of “polygraph by copier”? If you haven’t, here’s how it works:
A detective loads three sheets of paper into a Xerox machine.
“Truth” has been typed onto the first sheet.
“Truth” has been typed onto the seond sheet.
“Lie” has been typed onto the third sheet. Then a criminal suspect is led into the room and told to put his hand against the side of the machine. “What is your name?” asks the detective.
The suspect gives it.
The detective hits the copy button, and a page comes out: “Truth.”
“Where do you live?” asks the detective.
The suspect gives an address, the detective again hits the copy button, and a second page appears: “Truth.”
Then comes the bonus question: “Did you or did you not kill Big Jim Tate on the evening of….?”
The suspect answers.
The detective presses the copy button one last time, and the sheet appears: “Lie.”
“Well, well, well, you lying little bastard,” says the detective.
Convinced that the police have found some mysterious way to peer into the darkest recesses of his criminality, the suspect “gives it up” and makes a full confession.
Yes, contrary to what many believe, police can legally use deceit to obtain a confession.
In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled, in United States v. Russell: “Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution, for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available.”
In that case, the Court narrowly upheld a conviction for methamphetamine production even though the defendant had argued entrapment.
So what types of interrogative deceit might a police officer use to develop admissible evidence of a suspect’s guilt?
The general rule is that deception can be used so long as it’s not likely to cause an innocent person to commit a crime or confess to a crime that s/he didn’t commit.
Click here: The Lawful Use of Deception – Article – POLICE Magazine
Consider the following examples:
- A detective is interviewing a suspect in a rape case. “Oh, that girl,” he says, thus implying that the victim was a slut and had it coming. The suspect, thinking he’s dealing with a sympathetic listener, starts bragging about his latest conquest–only to learn, too late, that his listener isn’t so simpatico after all.
- “We found your prints on the gun”–or on any number of other surfaces. Actually, there are few good places on a pistol to leave prints. And those that are left can be smeared. The same goes for other surfaces. But if a suspect can be led to believe the cops have his prints, a confession is often forthcoming.
- A police officer is interrogating a suspect in a murder case. “He came at you, didn’t he?” asks the cop. The suspect, who murdered the victim in cold blood, thinks he has an escape route. “Yeah, he came at me”–this confirming that, yes, he did kill the deceased.
- “Your partner just gave you up” is a favorite police strategen when there is more than one suspect involved. If one suspect can be made to “flip”–turn–against the other, the case is essentially wrapped up.
- Interrogating a bank robbery suspect, a cop might say: “We know you didn’t do the shooting, that you were only the wheelman.” This implies that the penalty for driving the getaway car is far less than that for killing someone during a robbery. In fact, criminal law allows every member of the conspiracy to be charged as a principal.
- “I don’t give a damn what you did,” says the detective. “Just tell me why you did it.” For some suspects, this offers a cathartic release, a chance to justify their guilt.
- The “good cop/bad cop” routine is known to everyone who has ever seen a police drama. Yet it continues to yield results so often it continues to be routinely used. “Look, I believe you,” says the “good” cop, “but my partner’s a real asshole. Just tell me what happened so we can clear this up and you can go.”
- “So,” says the detective, “why do you think the police believe you did it?” “I have no idea,” says the suspect, confident that he isn’t giving up anything that might come back to haunt him. “Well,” says the cop, “I guess you’ll just have to make something up.” Make something up sounds easy, but is actually a trap. The suspect may end up giving away details that could incriminate him–or lying so brazenly that his lies can be used against him.
So is there a best way for a suspect to deal with an invitation to waive his Mirandaright to remain silent?
Yes, there is.
It’s to refuse to say anything and to ask for permission to call a lawyer.
That’s the preferred method for Mafia hitmen–and accused police officers. Any cop who finds himself under investigation by his department’s Internal Affairs unit automatically shuts up–and calls his lawyer.
Any other response–no matter how well-intentioned–may well result in a lengthy prison sentence.
ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CNN, CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, FACEBOOK, LAWSUITS, NBC NEWS, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, NYPD, POLICE BRUTALITY, RACISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, TWITTER, USA TODAY
CALL A COP, GO TO JAIL
In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on March 24, 2015 at 3:21 pmAs the stage line goes: It seemed like a good idea at the time.
A mother finds that her nine-year-old son has stolen money from her purse. So she decides to have someone who commands respect teach him that stealing is wrong.
So she calls the police–and things go horribly wrong.
Here’s what happened.
Tyeesha Mobley, 29, caught her nine-year-old son stealing $10 from her purse.
So she called the called the New York Police Department (NYPD)
Can you please send over an officer to explain to my kids that stealing is wrong? she asked.
The police department agreed, and sent over not one but four officers to meet Mobley and her two boys at a nearby gas station.
Tyeesha Mobley
The meeting started off well.
“Three officers was joking around with [the nine-year-old who had stolen the $10], telling him, ‘You can’t be stealing; you’ll wind up going in the police car,’” Mobley testified at a court hearing in October, 2014.
But the fourth officer apparently resented the assignment.
According to a lawsuit subsequently filed by Mobley, the following happened:
“You black bitches don’t know how to take care of your kids,” said the fourth officer. “Why are you wasting our time? Why don’t you take your fucking kid and leave?”
Mobley decided that was a good time to leave. But before she could do so, the cop told her she was under arrest.
“What for?” she asked.
“If you’re going to say another fucking word,” the lawsuit alleges the cop warned her, “I’m going to knock your teeth down your throat.”
He then shoved her up against a car, kicked her legs, and handcuffed her.
Mobley’s two sons–ages four and nine–could only watch in horror as their mother was being manhandled.
“Stop, you’re hurting mommy,” they cried, according to the complaint filed in the lawsuit.
Yet worse was to come.
Mobley spent a night in jail. Her two boys were taken away and placed in foster care for four months–with a family that spoke no English.
Finally, a judge threw out the case against her.
Mobley has since filed a lawsuit against New York City, the NYPD and the Administration for Children’s Services.
“She was simply trying to make sure her son stayed on the right path,” said her attorney, Philip Sporn. “This shouldn’t happen to anyone, let alone to a good mom with her kids.”
The lawsuit highlights a fundamental weakness of the American justice system.
Americans almost universally believe that any wrong can be rectified if enough money is paid out as punishment.
Thus, car makers who knowingly keep dangerous vehicles on the road instead of issuing a recall settle up in civil lawsuits.
As a rule, they refuse to admit wrongdoing–and the amount of money they’re forced to pay out to victims isn’t disclosed.
Nearly always, this means the victim–or his survivors–is forbidden to publicly say why the company paid out a huge settlement, such as: “They admitted they knew the brakes were faulty but they didn’t want to spend the money fixing them.”
And if the victims disclose this admission–or how much money they got from Car Maker X–that money can legally be taken from them.
Never, however, is a CEO criminally prosecuted for ordering his company to conceal wrongdoing or dangerous products.
Thus, corporate predators are allowed to escape the criminality of their actions–and go on to prey on other victims.
The same holds true with lawsuits against the police.
Even if Mobley wins a huge settlement, the officer who victimized her will almost certainly remain on the NYPD.
And he will be able to victimize others who have the bad luck to encounter him.
Handing out big chunks of money is not enough to establish justice for outrageous violations of people’s civil rights.
It’s as if former Reichsmarshall Hermann Goring, charged with war crimes, were allowed to fork over a big sum of money and then comfortably retire to his estate.
Until Americans realize that some crimes demand more than financial payment, this country’s “criminal justice system” will fail to live up to its name.
Share this: