Why are interrogations recorded

Customer Login Technical Support Faq. Support Portal. Partner Portal. All Rights Reserved. Interview Room Recording Systems.

Go back to News. January 15th, A recent Huffington Post blog makes a cogent argument for mandated statewide recording of police interrogations. Nearly a decade after Illinois enacted the first law requiring that custodial interrogations in murder cases must be recorded from start to finish, more than a dozen other states have enacted similar legislation. In addition, over police departments across the country record custodial interrogations voluntarily.

The legislation varies from state to state as there are different requirements for what felonies should be recorded and how. Whatever the legislation mandates, electronic recording of interrogations, from the reading of Miranda rights onward, is the single best reform available to stem the tide of false confessions.

And while it can be hard to understand why someone would falsely confess to a crime, DNA exonerations have proven that the problem is more widespread than many people think. They recognize the many benefits of recording confessions: detectives are better able to concentrate on the interview rather than on note taking; there are no longer disputes about what was said and done during the interrogation; officers who might otherwise be tempted to play fast-and-loose with the rules are deterred from doing so; it is more difficult for interviewed suspects to bring trumped-up charges against police officers for alleged misconduct; and public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system is enhanced.

All in all, this common sense reform has worked extraordinarily well. Stone and Sullivan argue that leaving the decision up to the discretion of individual police departments, without mandatory legislation, is not enough. States should enact statutes or court rules that require custodial interrogations for at least the most serious crimes to be recorded in their entirety.

This will improve transparency and create an indisputable account of what happened during the interrogation — which benefits the entire system. Over half the states in the country and the District of Columbia require recording of certain custodial interrogations either through statute or court action. This includes but is not limited to spontaneous declarations or other statements not elicited by the police questioning.

Recordings shall be retained by the department in secure storage for a period of time as defined by state law or the office of the prosecutor. Included in this document are the following:. Video technology has become widely accepted among law enforcement agencies and today is used routinely for a variety of purposes. These include, among other adaptations, documentation of crime scenes, recording victim and witness statements, sobriety tests, traffic stops, surveillance, accident scenes, and crime scenes.

Electronic recording—defined in the model policy as the use of any audio or video recording whether using magnetic tape, digital means, or other recording media—of interrogations and confessions is also now used by a substantial number of law enforcement agencies in both large and small jurisdictions.

The intent of the model policy is that custodial interrogations be recorded at a place of detention; detention meaning, for example, a police station, jail, or holding facility where electronic recording capabilities are present.

All things considered, full recording of interrogation sessions and confessions are generally preferable. This is the only positive means by which police can demonstrate that interrogations were conducted properly and confessions elicited legally. Electronic Recordings and Quality of Interrogations. There is little conclusive evidence to show that the use of recordings has any significant effect on the willingness of suspects to talk.

While some are willing to talk or even play to the camera, others are reluctant. But the majority of agencies that use recordings have found that they were able to get more incriminating information from suspects who were recorded than they were in traditional interrogations.

Possibly of more interest to investigators who routinely conduct interrogations are study findings that recordings do not noticeably inhibit the interrogation practices of officers over the long run. Once investigators became accustomed to working in front of the camera, they typically reverted to traditional tactics. The use of profanity and street language by interrogators, for example, was a matter that caused initial concern.

Finally, in terms of the quality of confessions, the survey of agencies using recordings confirmed that defense attorneys lodged fewer allegations of coercion or intimidation after the agencies began to record. Administrations of Miranda warnings on camera are a primary reason for this, as well as the straight-forward record of the interrogation or confession or both provided by the recording. Prosecutors surveyed indicate that the use of videotape has little or no bearing on their decision to charge suspects.

Recordings, they say, provide the details of the interrogation such as the sophistication of the suspect, how he answers questions, body language and intonation that are not possible to capture on audiotape alone or through transcripts but are important to case preparation. Electronic recordings can also be of value to prosecutors in negotiating acceptable pleas.

If the recording shows a particularly strong case for the state, a plea bargain would normally favor the prosecution. On the other hand, should there be weaknesses with the case that are revealed on the tape, a reasonable plea bargain may be struck that averts more serious prosecutorial dilemmas should the case proceed to trial.

The Procedures section includes the following:. Almost every child victim interview protocol requires that the interview be recorded. The model policy makes this recommendation whenever circumstances and equipment availability permit. It is easy to understand why this is recommended; when a questioning session is recorded from start to finish, officers have a complete record that allows attorneys, courts, and other law enforcement personnel to objectively review the entire statement.

The recording also makes it unnecessary for officers to take notes during questioning, and allows them to focus exclusively on the interview. The recording protects officers from false claims of coercion, leading to fewer pre-trial suppression motions, more guilty pleas, and less time spent in court defending themselves on the witness stand. Finally, recordings can help guard against the false confessions previously mentioned. With a video- and audiotape recording, officers and others can review the interrogation for any signs of statements made or actions taken by police that could have resulted in a false confession.

The statement can also be reviewed repeatedly where verification of facts made by the juvenile need to be made. Experience over time has shown that the most common law enforcement objection to recording — that it would deter suspects from speaking freely — is unfounded. In fact, law enforcement agencies that have instituted mandatory recording of custodial interrogations have overwhelmingly come to embrace the practice.

Therefore, the recorder should be turned on the moment an officer begins talking to any child victim, witness, or suspect and should not be turned off until the last question is answered. It is the policy of this department that officers shall activate the BWC when such use is appropriate to the proper performance of his or her official duties, where the recordings are consistent with this policy and law.

This policy does not govern the use of surreptitious recording devices used in undercover operations. Video recorders and digital cameras have been useful tools in the law enforcement profession for some years.

Advances in technology have improved camera equipment and enhanced the development of the body- worn camera BWC. While many police agencies have taken advantage of these advancements even more have overlooked or are unaware of their usefulness, or have chosen not to deploy them.

Throughout the United States, courts are backlogged with cases waiting to be heard and officers who are spending time in court that could be used more productively in enforcement activities.