Interrogation Techniques

Officer Smith has the option of using different interrogation techniques. The most common
technique is known as the Reid technique. The following nine steps are part of this technique.

1. Direct Confrontation
All the evidence is provided to the suspect with the police officer giving the suspect a chance to
confess immediately. Officer Smith tells Dave that the neighbors saw him hit his wife and his
wife has bruises on her arms. Officer Smith also shows Dave pictures of the handprint on his
wife's face and tells Dave they can match the handprint from the picture to Dave's hand. If this
does not work then the officer moves to the next step: dominance.
2. Dominance
The law enforcement agent does not let the suspect talk. Since Dave isn't speaking, Officer Smith
is able to continue talking without being interrupted. Office Smith offers up different scenarios.
A) Dave didn't hit his wife. He was helping her because she was falling, and he grabbed her to
keep her from hitting the ground.
B) Dave was upset and flung his hands and hit her by accident.
C) The domestic violence wasn't an accident, and Dave had a moment of rage and really meant
to hit his wife.
Dave is still not speaking. He is not admitting or denying any of the scenarios that Officer Smith
has given. Since dominance isn't working, the officer can use deflection.
3. Deflection
Officer Smith will now try to give moral justification for why Dave hit his wife. Deflection is
also known as ''creating a theme,'' and the theme can change throughout the interview depending
on how the suspect answers the questions.

Officer Smith creates a theme using the scenarios in the dominance step. Officer Smith justifies
Dave's actions because it is only correct to help his wife who was falling. He also justifies Dave
hitting his wife by creating the theme that it was an accident all around. She was either falling or
he was flailing his hands and she walked into them.

Officer Smith also uses victim-blaming, saying that Dave was mad so she shouldn't have come
close to Dave during this time of rage. She would not have been hit if she just walked away.
Dave finally starts to talk, and he objects to all of the themes. These objections give Officer
Smith the opportunity to turn the objections into a justification for the domestic violence.
4. Turning Objections into Justifications
Dave tells Officer Smith that, ''I don't hit women because it is wrong.'' and ''I am not a violent
person so I would not hit anyone.'' Officer Smith takes the objections and justifies the domestic
violence. Officer Smith says, ''So you really didn't want to hit your wife, did you?'' and ''You are
not violent, but when your wife got in your way, you had to hit her?'' Officer Smith was not able
to get Dave to answer either of his justification questions, so he started showing empathy for
Dave.
5. Expressing Empathy
Officer Smith expresses empathy for Dave. He tells Dave he understands what he is going
through and that he gets irritated with his own wife. Officer Smith says that if Dave's wife
wouldn't have argued with him she would not have been hurt. Dave once again remains silent
and chooses not to speak with Officer Smith after he expressed empathy. Officer Smith will
move to the next step of the Reid technique and will once again, create alternative themes.
6. Offering Alternative Themes
Dave is unresponsive during the empathy step. He doesn't answer Officer Smith's questions, so
Officer Smith offers different themes and different scenarios. This time, when creating scenarios,
Officer Smith focuses on Dave's duties to society. Officer Smith says, ''Dave, you will not
confess because you're afraid you will lose your job and will not be able to see your kids.''
Officer Smith then says, ''You hit your wife to be the man of the house, and you didn't want to
lose control over her.'' Dave becomes responsive to the scenario about losing his job and his
children. He nods his head at Officer Smith, which is the first admission of guilt. Officer Smith
continues on with the questioning by posing alternative questions about Dave's children and job.
7. Posing the Alternative Question
Posing an alternative question means Officer Smith will ask Dave about losing his job and
children. He will say to Dave, ''You're afraid you will lose your job and that your children will
not speak to you if you confess to hitting your wife?'' Dave responds, ''I hit my wife and didn't
really mean to. I do not want to lose my children.'' Dave admits his guilt to Officer Smith, and he
must now repeat the confession in front of other members of the agency.
Interrogation

The Reid website states that an interrogation “should only occur when the investigator is
reasonably certain of the suspect's involvement in the issue under investigation.” There are nine
steps to the Reid interrogation technique, briefly described below.

1. The positive confrontation. The investigator tells the suspect that the evidence demonstrates
the person's guilt. If the person's guilt seems clear to the investigator, the statement should be
unequivocal.

2. Theme development. The investigator then presents a moral justification (theme) for the
offense, such as placing the moral blame on someone else or outside circumstances. The
investigator presents the theme in a monologue and in sympathetic manner.

3. Handling denials. When the suspect asks for permission to speak at this stage (likely to deny
the accusations), the investigator should discourage allowing the suspect to do so. The Reid
website asserts that innocent suspects are less likely to ask for permission and more likely to
“promptly and unequivocally” deny the accusation. The website states that “[i]t is very rare for
an innocent suspect to move past this denial state.”

4. Overcoming objections. When attempts at denial do not succeed, a guilty suspect often makes
objections to support a claim of innocence (e.g., I would never do that because I love my job.)
The investigator should generally accept these objections as if they were truthful, rather than
arguing with the suspect, and use the objections to further develop the theme.

5. Procurement and retention of suspect's attention. The investigator must procure the suspect's
attention so that the suspect focuses on the investigator's theme rather than on punishment. One
way the investigator can do this is to close the physical distance between himself or herself and
the suspect. The investigator should also “channel the theme down to the probable alternative
components.”

6. Handling the suspect's passive mood. The investigator “should intensify the theme
presentation and concentrate on the central reasons he [or she] is offering as psychological
justification . . . [and] continue to display an understanding and sympathetic demeanor in urging
the suspect to tell the truth.”
7. Presenting an alternative question. The investigator should present two choices, assuming the
suspect's guilt and developed as a “logical extension from the theme,” with one alternative
offering a better justification for the crime (e.g., “Did you plan this thing out or did it just happen
on the spur of the moment?”). The investigator may follow the question with a supporting
statement “which encourages the suspect to choose the more understandable side of the
alternative.”

8. Having the suspect orally relate various details of the offense. After the suspect accepts one
side of the alternative (thus admitting guilt), the investigator should immediately respond with a
statement of reinforcement acknowledging that admission. The investigator then seeks to obtain
a brief oral review of the basic events, before asking more detailed questions.

9. Converting an oral confession to a written confession. The investigator must convert the oral
confession into a written or recorded confession. The website provides some guidelines, such as
repeating Miranda warnings, avoiding leading questions, and using the suspect's own language.

10 Interrogation Techniques Used By The Police

Police use a number of different interrogation techniques to extract confessions from suspects.
There is no one-size-fits-all method, so they have to depend on a diverse range of tactics.
Sometimes, they even employ multiple techniques on a single suspect.
Some interrogation methods lead innocent people to claim guilt for crimes they never committed
and have sparked controversy for this reason. However, as we will all see, it all depends on the
use of coercive psychology, tricks, deceit, and lies.
10. Mr. Big
Mr. Big is also called the Canadian Technique because it was developed by the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police in the 1990s. The tactic is time-consuming and only used as a last resort for
uncooperative suspects the police know are guilty.
The police find where the uncooperative suspect hangs out. An undercover officer befriends the
suspect and, after several visits, asks if the suspect is interested in some “jobs” from the officer’s
“organization.” The suspect, who is usually a person of shady character, says yes.
The jobs start off as smaller tasks like recovering vehicles from people owing the organization
but soon involve burglaries and other crimes. During that time, the undercover officer will
converse with the suspect until the latter reveals details of the crime being investigated.
The undercover officer introduces the suspect to the boss of the organization several months
later. The boss, of course, is another undercover officer. The first undercover officer revisits the
details of the crime he had earlier gleaned from the suspect and coerces the suspect to confess to
the boss.
The suspect will usually refuse to talk, but the boss will insist on knowing the details of the
crime because he wants to know everything about his new man and does not want surprises. The
boss sends the suspect away if he still refuses to talk and does not give him more work.
The undercover officer contacts the suspect again weeks later. The suspect is desperate at this
time and wants more work, so he becomes cooperative and reveals the details of the crime to the
undercover officer. He repeats the confession to the boss, after which he is arrested.
9. Good Cop, Bad Cop
The Good Cop, Bad Cop interrogation technique is the carrot and stick of police interrogation. It
was originally part of the Reid Technique but is used as a standalone tactic these days. Like the
name already hints, one cop pretends to be the “bad guy,” while the other is the “good guy.”
The bad cop interrogates the suspect first. He is brash, uncouth, and very arrogant. He
intimidates the suspect, insists he is guilty, and urges him to confess. Some suspects become
afraid at this point and confess.
The good cop comes in when the suspect does not confess. He chides the bad cop for his
aggressive interrogation tactics and takes over the interrogation. He assures the suspect of
receiving a lighter punishment or even a pardon if they confess to the crime. The goal is that the
suspect will become calmer and be more likely to confess to the nicer cop.
8. Reid Technique
The Reid Technique is one of the primary interrogation techniques used by the police. The
technique is long, complicated, and involves several strategies. The interrogation starts with the
officer telling the suspect that the evidence points to his guilt. However, he takes care to not
actually blame the suspect for the crime.
The officer engages the suspect in a one-sided conversation. The suspect is not given permission
to talk during the conversation because he will always deny the accusation, especially when he is
guilty. And it could be difficult to get the truth thereafter. The suspect talks anyway and tries
hard to prove his innocence.
The interrogator is sympathetic toward the suspect during the conversation. He reinforces the
suspect about his supposed innocence and will even remind him that the crime could have been
committed by somebody else. While at it, the officer closely observes the suspect for behaviors
that indicates he could be lying.
The Reid technique has been criticized because it is usually long, coercive, and confrontational.
The interrogating officer also tells a lot of lies.[3] This has caused innocent people to admit to
crimes they never committed. Several police departments are abandoning it for this reason.
7. Leading and Loaded Questions
Interrogators ask lots of questions during interrogations. One category of these is called leading
questions. These are questions that force the suspect to give specific answers. Interrogators
choose their words carefully when asking leading questions.
For instance, an interrogator could ask, “Did you see the man in the black-and-white overalls?”
The use of “the” instead of “a” has made the question a leading question. The suspect could have
just said he didn’t see any man wearing black-and-white overalls if an “a” was used.
But a “the” means the man in black-and-white overalls was there. Now the suspect has to think
about the incident. The thing is, though, that the police could ask this sort of question even if a
man wearing black-and-white overalls was never at the scene.
A similar tactic involves the use of loaded questions. Loading questions assume that certain facts
are true, even if they are not. For instance, an interrogator could ask, “At what time last night did
you drive away in the getaway car?” or “What were the two of you arguing about that ended in
you hitting him?”
The first questions implies that the suspect was in the getaway car. The other question accuses
the suspect of hitting another person, even if he never did. There are also dichotomous questions
that require “yes” or “no” answers and multiple-choice questions that give the suspect more
possible answers but still limit the responses to a certain number of choices.
1. Minimization And Maximization
Minimization and maximization are two different but similar interrogation techniques. They have
the same premise. Minimization means the crime is made to look smaller than it truly is. The
suspect is fooled into believing the offense really is innocuous and confesses. This works by
making the suspect believe his punishment will be smaller than he thought.
Maximization is the opposite. This means the crime is made to look bigger than it is. The
interrogator will often remind the suspect of long jail terms and the most severe punishments
applicable to the offense. This works by making the suspect believe he will receive a lighter
punishment if he confesses.
Both techniques are considered controversial because they could lead to harsher punishments for
the suspect. During an experiment, it was discovered that a mock jury was more likely to convict
people who confessed after interrogators used the minimization technique to coerce a confession.
6. Field Interview
Police do not always need to make arrests before they interrogate a suspect. They could also
conduct informal interrogations they call field interviews. A field interview is an interrogation
conducted outside a police station. These interviews are not structured and are at the discretion of
the interviewing officer.
The simple conversation you had with that cop during a traffic stop is a field interview. Don’t
slip up during those conversations, though, because whatever you say could be used against you
in court. The police officer is not required to tell you that because Miranda rights are only read
when you are arrested.
The rule of the thumb is to consider any question a cop asks you besides your name and home
address a field interview. Plainclothes officers can also conduct field interviews but need to
identify themselves first.
5. Kinesic Interview
Kinesic interview is an observational interrogation technique. The interrogating officer asks the
suspect several questions while closely observing their behavior and body language as they
respond. Officers also try to detect nervousness, deception, and lies.
The officer compares the suspect’s actions to certain behaviors they call “confession behaviors.”
These are behaviors people are thought to exhibit when they’re guilty. They include crying,
slumping into the chair, and pointing a thumb up when the hands are clasped.
4. Lies
The police are allowed to lie to you. And they often do. Police tell all sort of lies to coerce
suspects to confess. They could claim they have fingerprints, DNA evidence, or eyewitnesses
who saw the suspect commit the crime, even when they do not.
One of the most coercive lies involves assuring the suspect that whatever they say will not be
used against them in court. Another involves the false revelation that an accomplice already
confessed and implicated the suspect. Then they offer to help the suspect if he confesses.
Police could also tell the suspect that a lie will put him in more trouble or other people in trouble.
They can also give fake tests and lie about test results. Some suspects are made to take fake lie
detector tests and given fake results that will usually show they failed.
During tense interrogations, police could offer to switch the recorder in the interrogation room
off in an attempt to coerce the suspect into making an unrecorded confession. While they might
truly have stopped recording, they probably haven’t. Besides, interrogation rooms often have
several cameras on them, so switching one off is no assurance that the rest are off.
Police could also trick a suspect into giving them DNA samples without asking. They do this by
offering the suspect a can of soda, a cup of coffee, or water. They later extract DNA from the
saliva at the tip of the cup or can.
3. Cognitive Interview
Crime victims and eyewitnesses sometimes have a hard time recalling information about a crime.
At other times, they even give entirely wrong information that they think is true. Police prevent
this by engaging in cognitive interviews.
Instead of asking a victim what happened straight-up, they could make them recall other things
that happened at the time of the incident. Questions asked during cognitive interviews could be
as innocuous as just asking about the weather.
Interviewees are often asked to reveal everything they remember, down to the smallest and most
useless details. One common tactic is to ask the victim or eyewitness what they heard or saw
during the incident. Victims and eyewitnesses could also be asked what they were doing on the
day of the crime.
Another common tactic is to ask the interviewee to recall the incident from the end to the
beginning. People normally recall events from the beginning to the end. An eyewitness could
also be asked what they thought other witnesses or the criminals saw during the crime.
2. Peace
PEACE means Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluate.
It is an interrogation technique mostly used by police officers in the UK and New Zealand.
The idea is to make the interrogation look more like an interview than a regular interrogation. It
involves lots of talking. The interrogators ask lots of questions and make the suspect talk for as
long as possible. They become friendly with the suspects while carefully coercing them to
confess.
The interrogator also asks the suspect to recall everything he remembers about the incident. Then
they compare whatever the suspect says with what they already know. They also zero on
interesting details from the suspect’s statements and ask more questions.