Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The Effects of Drugs and Alcohol upon the Reliability of Testimony 417
� group 1, ‘not drunk’;
� group 2, ‘not fully alert’ (i.e. diagnosed as drunk but showed little disturbance
in their level of alertness);
� group 3, ‘definite impairment’ (e.g. slurred speech);
� group 4, ‘major impairment’ (i.e. needed help with walking).
Out of a total of 2708 detainees observed where a diagnosis of intoxication
could be made, 590 (22%) arrived at the police station intoxicated. One-third
and one-fifth of these fell into groups 3 and 4 as exhibiting ‘definite impairment’
and ‘major impairment’, respectively. These findings suggest that overall about
5% of the number of detainees are suffering from a ‘major impairment’ when
they arrive at the police station and a further 8% exhibit a ‘definite impairment’,
giving a total of 13%. The great majority (88%) of those in group 4 had
been arrested for a drunkenness offence alone and these persons were rarely
interviewed by the police or charged with an offence.
Drunkenness on reception was found to be significantly related with expressions
of hostility and physical violence in the custody area, to the ethnicity
of the detainee (i.e. Caucasians of Scottish or Irish background were
over-represented), to drunkenness and public disorder offences, dirty physical
appearance, premature aging, age of the detainee (i.e. the drunk detainees
tended to be older than the other detainees) and the length of time it took for
the detainee to be interviewed (i.e. being intoxicated delayed the time it took
for them to be interviewed by the police).
As far as the police interviews were concerned, only 818 (30%) were interviewed
by the police. The remaining 70% of detainees were either at the police
station because of their bail conditions or they were not interviewed in view of
the nature of their offence (not all suspects arrested by the police for criminal
offences are interviewed by the police). Out of the 818 detainees, only 49 (6%)
were considered to have been drunk on reception at the police station. Furthermore,
only 16 (2%) were considered to have been moderately or very drunk. This
negative relationship between arriving at the police station intoxicated and not
being interviewed was due to the large number of intoxicated people who had
been arrested for drunkenness alone and were never interviewed by the police
(i.e. they were almost always cautioned rather than charged). What the study
tells us is that, as far as seven London police stations are concerned, it is very
rare for detainees who arrive drunk at the police station to be interviewed in
connection with a criminal offence.
Do these findings suggest that we do not have to have to be concerned about
alcohol intoxication and withdrawal symptoms? There are at least three reasons
for concern. First, alcohol intoxication (including the inhalation of vomit
by drunk detainees) and drug poisoning are the single most common causes
of death in police custody (Johnson, 1982). Second, the data from the seven
London police stations may not be representative of police stations in other
areas or other countries. Third, even if suspects who arrive heavily intoxicated
at the police station are not commonly interviewed, when they are interviewed
they may be disadvantaged in terms of their being able to cope satisfactorily
with police questioning (Clark, 1991). Clark suggests that intoxicated detainees