Recording Interrogations

Electronic recording of custodial interrogations has emerged as a powerful fact-finding tool that helps the criminal justice system reach the truth and protect against wrongful convictions. The virtue of recording interrogations, and its strength as a public policy, lies not only in its ability to help guard against false confessions, but also in its ability to develop strong evidence to help convict the guilty.

Electronic Recording CoverThe Justice Project created Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations: A Policy Review (pdf), which details the best practices for recording interrogations and provides a comprehensive rationale for changes in procedure. Additionally, the policy review includes background information on false confessions, a model policy for the electronic recording of custodial interrogations, and the experiences of jurisdictions with recording statutes currently in practice.

Confessions are often viewed as the most powerful evidence at trial, and can even overcome other types of evidence pointing to the defendant’s innocence, including DNA. An electronic recording provides an objective record that can be carefully reviewed for inconsistencies or to evaluate the suspect’s demeanor. The recording is tangible evidence in which the voluntariness and reliability of a suspect’s statement can be evaluated.

In order to reap the benefits that electronic recording affords police, prosecutors, suspects, and the system as a whole, the entire custodial interrogation must be recorded in criminal cases. Recording should begin at and include the delivery of the suspect’s Miranda rights and continue, unaltered and uninterrupted, until the end of the interview to remove any questions of whether Miranda warnings were given.

Full electronic recording of interrogations helps protect both sides of the criminal justice system - the defense against damaging false confessions and prosecution from false claims of abuse or coercion.

The Justice Project’s Recommendations for Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

  • The method of recording, i.e. audio or video should be left to the discretion of the agency to choose the system that best fits its needs and resources.
  • The parameters for recording an interrogation should be clearly defined. Recording in all cases involving vulnerable suspects, i.e. juveniles and the mentally ill, and for interrogations where serious felonies have occurred promise the greatest benefits to law enforcement.
  • Effective recording policies include reasonable exceptions to the recording requirement, to relieve an undue burden on law enforcement and allow for the admission of voluntary statements that went unrecorded for valid reasons.
  • States should have remedies available when no recording is made and when the circumstances do not fall within reasonable exceptions.
  • Many agencies prefer the option of inconspicuous recording devices in interrogation rooms. Whether or not a suspect’s consent is needed to record depends on specific state law, however statutes can be tailored to accommodate inconspicuous recording if needed.
  • Provisions should be included to ensure electronic evidence is handled and preserved properly, and to prevent loss or premature destruction.

Related Studies:

Thomas Sullivan, Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations: Everybody Wins, 2005

Federal Bureau of Investigations, Law Enforcement Bulletin (pdf), 2006

American Bar Association, Section of Criminal Justice and The New York County Lawyers’ Association Report to the House of Delegates on Videotaping Interrogations (pdf)

Steve Drizin and Richard Leo, The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World (pdf), 2004

Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations Resource List

Related Cases:

Earl Washington, Jr.
In 1984, a Virginia jury convicted a mentally-retarded man of rape and murder and sentenced him to death based almost entirely on a false confession elicited after two days of interrogation. In October 2000, after DNA testing had provided unassailable proof of his innocence, Washington received a full pardon, and in 2006, a federal jury awarded him $2.25 million in damages. Read about Earl Washington, Jr.

Gary Gauger
In 1994, Gary Gauger was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his parents at their McHenry County, Illinois farm. No physical evidence linked Gary to the crime, but after an all-night interrogation, he made unrecorded statements that police and prosecutors claimed constituted a confession. In 1996, Gary’s conviction was reversed by an appellate court. When evidence emerged implicating members of a notorious motorcycle gang in the murders, the prosecution decided to drop all charges against him. The next year, the gang members were convicted in federal court. Read about Gary Gauger

 

Print This Page Print This Page