Monster Media 1994 #1/monster.zip/monster/TEXT/LEB94JAN.ZIP/94JAN005.TXT

Text File | 1994-01-20 | 13KB | 274 lines

   RESEARCH FORUM: VIDEOTAPING INTERROGATIONS & CONFESSIONS

                               By

                     William A. Geller, J.D.
                       Associate Director
                 Police Executive Research Forum
                         Washington, DC.


     Every aspect of American society feels the impact of video
technology. No longer just for documenting baby's first steps,
video cameras now play an increasingly important role in the
criminal justice system. Law enforcement's use of audio-video
technology ranges from providing department store surveillance to
documenting police field stops of suspects and their
interrogations in station house interview rooms.

     In March 1993, the National Institute of Justice published
the results of a preliminary study on the use of video technology
in criminal interrogations. (1) The study provides a useful guide
for departments in deciding whether to use videotaping. It
identifies questions to consider when developing a videotaping
policy, procedural issues to resolve, and the perceived effects
of videotaped interrogations on case preparation and court
proceedings.

THE STUDY

     In the three-part study, Geller first reviewed the relevant
literature to define the issues involved in videotaping
confessions and interrogations. Then, he surveyed police and
sheriffs' departments nationwide to identify those that do and do
not videotape, followed by a phone survey on practices employed
and practitioners' perceptions of the efficiency of such
videotaping. Finally, Geller conducted indepth interviews of
criminal justice practitioners (including police, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, and judges) in 11 cities and counties where
confessions and interrogations were videotaped to determine their
perceptions about the practice and its effects.

THE RESULTS

     Geller's exploration of videotaping practices employed by
police across the country brought out a number of important
issues. For example, each police department had to decide when to
tape interrogations, whether tapes should be made overtly or
covertly, how the use of tapes affected prosecutors' and defense
attorneys' case preparation and court proceedings, and how the
taping influenced the interviewers' choice of interrogation
tactics.

OVERVIEW

     The survey revealed that in 1990, approximately one-third of
law enforcement agencies serving populations of 50,000 or more
were videotaping at least some interrogations; that number was
expected to swell to more than 60 percent of such departments by
1993. Larger departments used video technology more than smaller
ones, perhaps because of budget constraints or caseload
considerations. Most of the departments surveyed in 1990 had been
using video technology for interrogations for at least 3 years,
and 41 percent had done so for at least 5 years. Generally,
departments had moved gradually from written reports to
audiotapes and then to video documentation.

TYPES OF CASES

     Videotaping suspects' statements and interrogations is most
prevalent in felony cases--the more severe the felony, the more
likely videotaping will be used. Homicide suspects' statements
were taped by 83 percent of the surveyed agencies that used
videotaping. The majority of the videotaping departments also
made some use of video documentation of interrogations in the
other types of violent crime cases--rape, aggravated battery or
assault, and armed robbery--as well as in drunk driving cases.

REASONS FOR TAPING

     Interrogations and confessions were taped for a variety of
reasons. Many surveyed agencies sought to refute defense
attorneys' criticisms of police interrogation techniques and
challenges to the completeness and accuracy of written
confessions or audiotaped statements. Others cited a desire to
show clearly that suspects confessed voluntarily. Videotaped
statements also served to remind detectives of important details
when testifying in court.

     At the same time, strong arguments were made against
videotaping. These arguments were advanced primarily by
practitioners who had never used videotaping and had no firsthand
knowledge of its costs and benefits. Those opposed to such video
recordings believed that suspects are more afraid to talk freely
in front of a camera, knowing that every detail could be seen and
heard in court. Some departments also cited the prohibitive costs
involved in purchasing and maintaining equipment, remodeling
interview rooms, and storing tapes.

     Another concern revealed by the interviews was the fear that
introduction of video technology in court would result in
required taping of all statements in most serious felony cases.
Detectives worried that courts would suppress nonvideotaped
statements or that judges and juries would find written
confessions unconvincing.

     In fact, Geller's survey found that 70 percent of the
agencies found it no harder to present nonvideo-taped confessions
and statements in court, even after introducing videotapes in
other cases. Defense attorneys sometimes tried to insinuate that
confessions were intentionally not taped because they couldn't
withstand the close scrutiny, but the argument rarely persuaded
judges to suppress such statements. Thirty percent of agencies
surveyed, however, did find judges more reluctant to admit
nonvideotaped confessions after the video program began.

     Those who were apprehensive about being required to
videotape all statements generally had never videotaped an
interrogation. Most video users did not object to taping all
statements; they usually believed videotaping was so beneficial
that they employed it uniformly and avoided the selective taping
issue entirely. Still, Geller speculates selective taping could
cause problems and merits further evaluation.

OVERT VS. COVERT TAPING

     Very few agencies in the survey used covert taping methods.
Most agencies either informed suspects that a tape was being made
or simply left the camera or microphone in plain view during the
interrogation.

     Covert taping brings up some sticky ethical questions, such
as privacy rights, but proponents say the benefits still should
be considered. One obvious benefit is that suspects who are
reluctant to talk on camera can be recorded speaking freely and
willingly. Covert recording also reduces the distraction to the
interviewer and interviewee of having the equipment and camera
operator in the interview room.

     Other considerations may lead departments to decide against
surreptitious taping of station house interrogations. State and
local laws might prohibit it, even though Federal law does not. A
"reasonable expectation of privacy," a Federal constitutional
doctrine, does not exist during a station house interrogation.

     Another issue is the futility of taping covertly when word
spreads rapidly through the jails and on the street. Finally,
such taping practices may not support the fair and just image a
department wants to project to the community.

     The desire to minimize distractions has led many departments
to use covert techniques, even when suspects were made aware that
the interview was being documented on video tape. In this way,
some benefits of covert taping are gained without accompanying
ethical or other drawbacks.

PORTION OF THE INTERVIEW TO TAPE

     Geller found a sharp division of opinion among practitioners
over whether to tape the entire interrogation or just to record a
restated summary, or recap, of a previously unrecorded
interrogation. Recaps generally include exculpatory, as well as
incriminating, statements. Full interrogations last 2 to 4 hours
on average, whereas recaps average 15 to 45 minutes. In this era
of shrinking budgets, the cost of purchasing blank tapes and
creating transcripts--if judges and the attorneys on either side
request transcripts--merits significant consideration, but there
are other more significant arguments on both sides.

     Defense attorneys generally favor recording full
interrogations and object to recaps filled with leading
questions. They believe full recordings help to keep police
mindful of suspects' rights. Defense attorneys and judges assert
that recaps often minimize defendants' expressions of remorse.
Because the defendant's story typically has been repeated often
during the preceding interrogation, the emotional edge reflective
of remorse can be lost during the recorded recap.

     Many detectives appreciate the capture of seemingly trivial
comments that could later prove crucial to the case. Full
recordings can also discredit accusations that coercion was used
to obtain confessions.

     On the other side of the issue, detectives who use recaps
prefer getting concise and clearly incriminating statements. Some
investigators object to full tapes that usually begin with
denials of guilt, which are useful to the defense. Those using
recaps can rebut defense charges of coercion by describing what
preceded the taped statement.

     In rebuttal, advocates of taping full interviews contend
that juries and judges expect interrogations to begin with a
suspect's protestations of innocence. Thus, they eventually find
a confession most credible if they can follow the flow from
denial of guilt to the moment of transition and through to
admission and a confession.

PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF TAPING

     Once a taping program has been instituted, a number of
decisions need to be made about equipment and maintenance, and
certain procedures must be established. For example, agencies
must decide who has authority to determine which interrogations
will be videotaped and whether comprehensive written guidelines
are necessary.

     Most departments surveyed allowed the interrogating officer
to decide whether to tape, some gave that authority to the
sergeant, while still others always taped in specific types of
cases. Interview rooms might need to be remodeled to accommodate
video equipment, which could consist of high-quality consumer
products or professional television equipment. Geller's study
describes a variety of ways in which the surveyed agencies
handled these and other issues.

EFFECTS OF VIDEOTAPING

     The bottom line in any decision about videotaping
confessions and interrogations is whether tapes are useful and
within legitimate bounds of fairness in preparing and prosecuting
cases. Geller's study revealed a generally positive perception of
videotaping among criminal justice practitioners who have used
it.

     Prosecutors across the board said that videotaped
interrogations and confessions help them to assess the State's
case, prepare for trial, and conduct plea negotiations. The
videotapes capture subtle, often nonverbal, details missed in
written transcripts and audiotapes.

     Defense attorneys, however, had mixed views. Because
videotaped statements are more difficult for the defense to
attack than written transcripts or audiotapes, some defense
attorneys disliked the strategic edge video tapes give to
prosecutors. Others, though, appreciated the details video
recordings supply and the fact that they can also help clients to
remember important details. Seeing the demeanor and
sophistication of the defendant helps defense attorneys to
determine whether to put their clients on the witness stand.

     As evidence, it is somewhat easier to secure admission of
videotaped confessions than written confessions because
prosecutors can demonstrate the voluntary nature of the suspect's
statement. As for the effect on convictions and sentences, police
departments and prosecutors reported that videotaped
interrogations helped them to negotiate more guilty pleas and
longer sentences and secure more convictions. However, tapes
sometimes work for the defense, too, such as by indicating that a
confession was coerced or by leading a judge to impose a lesser
sentence on a demonstrably contrite defendant.

CONCLUSION

     Based upon this initial, exploratory study, it appears that
criminal justice practitioners generally find videotaping to be a
useful tool. Videos help to assess a suspect's guilt or
innocence, encourage fair treatment of suspects and respect for
their civil rights, reduce the stress on officers who must defend
their interrogation techniques in court, and capture important
details lost through other recording methods. Thus, video
technology used in this aspect of police operations appears to
simultaneously serve three often disparate goals of the criminal
justice system--effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy.


ENDNOTE

     (1)  William A. Geller's full report titled "Police
Videotaping of Suspect Interrogations and Confessions: A
Preliminary Examination of Issues and Practices" is available
from the Police Executive Research Forum, 2300 M Street NW.,
Suite 910, Washington, DC 20037 [phone]. A shorter version
of the report was published by the National Institute of Justice,
which funded the underlying study, in March 1993 (Request NCJ #
139962).