Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

or even a seemingly random phone number that can then be traced or tapped. The
detectives are quick to point out that while a confession is useful to have, it must
still be corroborated before a prosecution can move forward.
There is no formalized mechanism for supervision of, or feedback on,
interrogations conducted by the detectives in the homicide unit. Instead, Deputy
Superintendent Coleman or his deputies sometimes take home the audiotapes
of interrogations and listen for problems, providing feedback as necessary.
Feedback is usually given only if a problem is noted, and even then many of
the more experienced detectives find it difficult to change their ways. Coleman
also sends his detectives to court to listen to suppression motions argued by the
District Attorney’s office so that they become aware of potential problems with
interrogation procedures. However, these motions are usually based on legal
procedural issues instead of the actual interrogation techniques. Similarly, the
detectives often go to court to hear cross-examinations of detectives from their
division, as well as closing arguments in cases handled by their division, so they
can understand the questions and tactics used by defense attorneys and better
identify possible problem areas in their interrogations. The detectives note that
one of the most important skills for an interrogator, now that interrogations are
recorded, is to be able to explain his techniques to a jury so that the interrogation
does not appear overly coercive or tainted.
Generally the Boston Police Department does not videotape its interrogations;
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decision, like most statutes and court
decisions on the subject, only requires “electronic” recording. Prior to that decision,
the Boston Police Department would conduct the full interrogation, obtain the
confession, and only then start the tape to obtain a recording of the suspect’s
confession. Deputy Superintendent Coleman noted that he initially opposed
the requirement that all interrogations be taped because he was afraid that both
police and suspects would act differently, that the positive dynamics established
through rapport-building would be diminished, and that generally the presence of
recording equipment would inhibit interrogations. His view is slowly changing
as he sees the results of taping. While not fully convinced, the detectives agree
that taping interrogations offers numerous benefits, but they regard videotaping
as a wholly different matter. Most agree that videotaping would assist training
and review, and Coleman says that certain basic tenets of interrogation could be
taught more easily through the videotaping of interrogations.
At the same time, Coleman worries that because under Massachusetts law the
suspect would have to be informed that he is being videotaped, the interrogation
would be inhibited, less rapport would be established, and less information and
fewer confessions would be obtained. Part of the worry, especially when dealing
with gang members and similar criminals, is that because the tapes are discoverable,
suspects will be less likely to talk for fear that the tape might get back to the street,
where retaliation for cooperating with the police has spiked in recent years across
the country. Nonetheless, the detectives recognize that, in general, other police
departments and agencies have had positive experiences with the videotapes, and
see them as the inevitable next stage in interrogation requirements.
217