Last Updated on October 4, 2024
When you are accused of a crime, the police will often work on coaxing you to confess —even if you didn’t actually do it. To do this, police officers rely on several tried and true interview techniques, such as the well-known good cop/bad cop technique. While a skilled criminal defense attorney may be able to help get a false or forced confession thrown out of court, this can often be difficult, especially if the officers did not break the law during the interrogation session. Rather than hoping to have a confession thrown out, it’s better to hire a defense lawyer like Peter M. Liss as soon as you discover you are being investigated for a crime, as he can help you protect your rights. And remember to never speak with the police without counsel present, even if you haven’t been placed under arrest.
The Reid Technique (AKA Good Cop/Bad Cop)
The Reid technique is the best-known intimidation tactic used by police because it is so commonly featured in interrogation scenes on TV shows and movies and has even become a recognized writing trope. Essentially, one officer (the “bad cop”) is aggressive to the suspect, insisting they are guilty of the crime and intimidating them, so they feel pressure to confess. After the initial intimidation, another officer (or sometimes the same one) plays the “good cop.” The good cop acts like they are only there to help the suspect, offering them food, drinks, and a shoulder to cry on. This kind officer says they can help the suspect by taking their confession so they can go home, face lesser charges, feel unburdened, etc.
Between the intimidating bad cop and the friendly good cop, the suspect is alternatively scared and comforted. By offering a carrot and stick approach, the officers attempt to coax a confession from the suspect who wants to avoid further intimidation or help out the kind officer who helped them. While this technique may be effective, the psychological manipulation necessary to make it work often results in false confessions —especially when police officers lie to suspects to make them believe there is already enough evidence to prove their guilt.
Police Informal Questioning Technique
Many people, particularly those who have faced charges before, know that you should always request to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to speak with the police. For this reason, the Reid Technique often fails because suspects with an attorney are supported through the questioning, minimizing its effectiveness. To bypass the protective shield a client gains by having a defense lawyer present, police often informally question a suspect in a field interview without actually arresting them.
Any time you answer police questions without being placed under arrest and without a defense lawyer at your side, you are participating in informal questioning. Law enforcement officials benefit from this interrogation technique because many people do not realize they are suspected of committing a crime since they weren’t arrested. These individuals mistakenly believe that their statements cannot be held against them since they have not been Mirandized.
“If the police want to question you,” explains Liss, “there is a good chance they already believe you are involved with a crime.” Additionally, anything you say to the police can be used against you later, even if you have not yet been read your rights. Always refuse to answer any questions until you speak with your attorney.
Lying to Suspects
Whether you are being formally or informally questioned, police are permitted to lie during interrogations. “They can tell you a friend of yours confessed and implicated you in the crime, for example,” explains Liss, “or they can tell you they have evidence against you that doesn’t actually exist.” Alternatively, police often ask suspects to take a phony lie detector test and then claim the results indicate they are lying.
In many cases, police use this interrogation tactic to get a suspect to confess because they do not have enough evidence to arrest or convict the individual without a confession. Similarly, officers sometimes claim things are “off the record,” but even if an officer turns off a recorder during an interview, literally anything you say to the police can be used against you.
Even if the police have forensic evidence or a witness implicating you, that still doesn’t mean you should confess. Evidence is rarely conclusive, and witnesses can lie. A defense attorney could fight these things in court or may be able to negotiate a plea bargain in your favor, but if you confess to the crime, it will be much harder for them to do either of those things —especially if the matter goes to court. If you believe the police have all the evidence they need to convict you of a crime, you should still avoid confessing until you first speak with a defense attorney.
Saying that Cooperating Will Make Things Easier
A common lie police use that isn’t quite as obvious as claiming to have evidence that doesn’t exist is to claim cooperating will make things easier for the suspect. While this may be true for the immediate situation, it only applies at that specific time. You can always be arrested later and be charged with any crime you admit to. Helping the police just because they say it will make things easier for you will not help you in any way, and not aiding them will not result in your being punished by the police. You cannot be charged with obstruction for refusing to speak with them.
Police use this psychological trick to stop you from invoking your rights —particularly your right to silence and your right to counsel. If a police officer says this to you, insist on speaking with your attorney and do not say anything else. Your lawyer may negotiate with the District Attorney to make things easier for you. Still, the police do not have this power, and DAs will not usually make agreements with someone who does not have a defense lawyer.
Along the same lines, officers sometimes claim they will be able to get a warrant even if you refuse to let them search your property, implying it is in your best interest to consent to a search. But “the fact that they don’t already have a warrant should never be forgotten,” reminds Liss. “Either they don’t yet have enough evidence or are trying to avoid doing the paperwork.” If the police give you this line, tell them to come back when they have a warrant and call your criminal defense attorney to ensure your constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure are respected if they do return with a warrant.
Asking Leading and Loaded Questions
Police interrogation questions for suspects usually start very open-ended and then drill down to simple questions like “what did she say?” or “did you pick up the item?” Eventually, police will ask suspects leading questions, for example, “did you see the man with a beard holding a gun?” This method is frequently utilized as a part of the Reid technique. By asking the question in this manner rather than saying “a man with a beard,” they indicate that there is no doubt the statement is true —leading the interviewee to answer in the affirmative regardless of whether or not they know it to be true.
Alternatively, officers often ask loaded questions such as “how long did you wait before you broke into the house?” Again, this indicates that there is no doubt that the suspect broke into the house, leading them to confirm their guilt rather than telling their own version of the story.
One of the most commonly used loaded questions officers use is the old “do you know why I stopped you?” Police ask this question to people they have pulled over for one simple reason: they hope it can get people to confess to breaking the law. The officer doesn’t actually care if you know why they stopped you; they want to see if you might admit to something they had not yet noticed or to confess, providing evidence of your guilt. Remember, any time an officer asks you this question, just say “no.”
If you have been accused of any crime or believe you may be under investigation for one, please call (760) 643-4050 or (858) 486-3024 to schedule a free initial consultation with Peter M. Liss.
