What are the requirements of legal and e ffective interrogation………….
 

Interrogations are the onset of any criminal proceedings. As a rule therefore, interrogations should be carried in accordance with the law. Some of the times, interrogations do lead to confession. The confessions therefore have to be a voluntary and trustworthy if they are to be admissible in a court of law. In testing the admissibility of the confession, the confession has to be made by the suspect at his own volition or ‘free will.’ This ‘free will’ should be differentiated from the psychological definition and adopt a legal definition. The legal definition of the concept refers to whether the statement was made in the absence of threats or any other inducements (which may include promises of leniency).
How then can a police officer carry out a successful interrogation that is legally accepted? What techniques of interrogation should be used to necessitate a successful interview? What are the legal requirements for a successful interview? This paper will look into the proper and effective procedures that will result into a successful interrogation.
Legal Consideration
All American citizens have their rights protected by the constitution which are guaranteed by the sixth and Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right against self incrimination and is fundamentally considered during interrogations. In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona it was decided that police officers have got to provide a set of warnings that came to be referred to as the “Miranda rights” to subjects who are subjected to custodial interrogation. The questioning process is considered to be any actions or words auctioned by the police officer that is likely to led the arraigned person to incriminate themselves as was decided in the case of Rhode Island v. Innis.
The Court protects the suspects because innocent victims could be tricked into confessing crimes they never committed. Furthermore, a person may be caught in a web of evidence that are purely circumstantial and the victim may confess to a more serious crime by being tricked to confess with a promise of leniency as was decided in the two cases of People v. Cahill and People v. Fuentes.
Questioning plan and Technique
When questioning the suspect a police officer should have an elaborate plan that is going to help him in getting the most from the interrogation. Of course the main aim of an interview is to provide the necessary information needed to build a good case. But how does someone go about it? Successful interrogations require a lot of planning, mental preparations as well as physical preparations. Physical interrogation normally refers to how the room is going to be arranged. The room should be quite and private and should be situated far from noises and distractions. There should be no physical barrier between the police officer or investigator and the suspect. Furthermore the seats should be 4-5 feet apart. Most fundamental, the room should not be the suspect’s normal surroundings, these means the room has to be a non-supportive environment. Once this is established, the investigator has to use a positive confrontation technique to begin the interview. Then the investigator moves to the theme development and informs the suspect why he committed the crime. As an investigator, handling of denials and overcoming objections is also fundamental to a successful interrogation. Keeping the suspect always alert and innovating ways to handle a suspect’s passive mood are also important elements when planning a successful interrogation. Presenting the suspect with an alternative question which involves presenting the suspect with two incriminating choices for committing the crime is an important part of the strategy. If the suspect does admit, then, the investigator will have gotten the oral confession and therefore summarise the interview with a written confession.
Questioning line to be followed
The type of questions to be posed to the suspect should be specific to the course being aimed at. If it is admission of guilt, then the questions should be aimed at achieving just that. In our case, the suspect has been arrested with 15 grams of heroin (which is not a huge sample) and therefore the main charge would be possession of drugs. However, the police officer does not know this. Therefore questions have to be formulated to determine the intention or the motive of the suspect. As is common with criminal cases, both the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea have to be identified to charge a person fully with a specific crime. Therefore, the investigator has to determine whether the person intended to use the drugs on himself or whether he wanted to sell the drugs to another person. In both circumstances, the charges will vary. Additionally the investigator may want to know whether the suspect is part of larger ring of drug distributors and would therefore want the suspect to answer questions that would help him arrest the other drug distributors. The fact that no witnesses were available during the arrest makes the situation trickier; therefore, the investigator has to ask questions that are going to help him in getting a confession from the suspect. The offence occurred in Michigan which has a very tough stand in the fight against drugs (this is after the state passed the “650 lifer Law”) which stipulates that a person found guilty of possession of cocaine or opiates in excess of 650 grams is liable to life imprisonment without  the possibility of parole.
Type of questions to be asked
a) Why were you in possession of the drugs?
b) How did you posses the drugs?
c) Did you resist arrest from the police?
d) Is this you first time you are getting arrested for drug possession?
e) Where did you get the drugs?
The above questions will be helpful to determine the type of charge to be proffered against the victim as well as determining the character of the suspect.
Reference

Miranda v. Arizona. (1996) 384 U.S 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 684

People v. Cahill. (1994) 22 Cal. App 4th 296, 312

People v. Fuentes. (2006) B184728 Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist
Rhode Island v. Innis. (1980) 446 U.S. 291 300-301, 100 S.Ct. 1628, 64 L.Ed.2d 297

Place your order now………………