Comments on: The Case for Videotaping Police Interrogations

By: Corey

Corey — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:25:50 +0000

For an excellent even handed account of interrogation, read David Simon’s (yeah, the guy who did the Wire) Homicide. Post Miranda, Police investigators have become skilled at using the various consent forms as props in a confidence game to persuade defendants to waive their 5th amendment privilege. Simon covers it as well as any of the social scientists (e.g,. Richard Leo) who study this stuff.

By: albatross

albatross — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:52:27 +0000

I am curious. Is there some good argument for not videotaping police questioning/interrogations? Given the cost of videotaping equipment, I can’t seem to think of a good reason to argue against it at all. Am I missing something? Otherwise, it looks a whole lot like some bureaucrat arguing against having auditors allowed to look at his agency’s books–he’s trying to get away with something.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:59:18 +0000

If we hadn’t discovered and verified the suspect’s alibi — or if we hadn’t recorded the interrogation — she probably would have been convicted of first-degree murder and would be in prison today. The true perpetrator of the crime was never identified, partly because the investigation was derailed when we focused on an innocent person.

Kudos to the cop for actually paying attention to the alibi; too many LEOs/prosecutors will simply ignore contrary evidence once they “know” their target is guilty. They’ll insist that since their belief can’t be wrong, the evidence must be.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:12:30 +0000

There needs to be some sort of Miranda warning about talking to or cooperating with police. Most people don’t understand they they do not have to submit to an interrogation – oh sorry – “interview”. They also don’t know that any competent lawyer would tell you not to submit to an interrogation – damn, sorry “interview” – under any circumstances.

By: David McElroy

David McElroy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:30:10 +0000

For a fascinating and enlightening explanation of why false confessions happen (and why police believe them in spite of all evidence to the contrary), I recommend a book called, “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.” There’s only one chapter that deals specifically with police work, but the whole book is really worth reading and thinking about. It deals with the psychology behind how humans deal with cognitive dissonance in ways that make us truly believe things that absolutely never happened.

When I was a newspaper reporter, I learned that eyewitness accounts of things were rarely accurate. Sometimes, they were reasonable guides to some of what happened, but different witnesses would have very different stories. Each person would be truly upset at how wrong the OTHER witnesses could be. It’s amazing how this basic human tendency affects our politics, romances, justice system and on and on and on.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:14:17 +0000

They also use the tactic of asking if the recording has audio, and when you foolishly answer the cop YES, they charge you with federal wiretapping. It’s BS, but it’s what they do.

By: Libertarian Mac

Libertarian Mac — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:56:08 +0000

Thats so true Big Boy. I once tried to video a female state trooper making a traffic stop. When she saw my cell phone pointed at her she screamed “hey what are you recording over there” and started moving in my direction. I, ofcourse cowared, closed the flip and moved on. Not so much afraid of an arrest but of losing my phone. Incidentally, I was only recording her because she was the best looking cop I had ever seen.

By: Big Boy

Big Boy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:29:53 +0000

The new trend is to arrest anyone videotaping police activity (even if done in a public place and open to the view of dozens) for “disturbing the peace” of failing to obey an order to stop filming public servants conducting public business in a public place. Usually the case is dropped AFTER the cameras and cell phones are seized and the offending images “disappear” due to “spurious electrical currents” in the squad car.

Why?

Because the police can then “claim” that a dozen unrelated people with no motive to lie ARE doing just that so long as there is no SURVIVING audio or video record of the incident.

Secrecy always protects the liers.

By: TBoneJones

TBoneJones — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:32:21 +0000

Of course police don’t want things video taped. It makes it impossible for them to lie. San Diego is on of the largest cities in the US. Federal grants would be available if Law Enforcement wanted patrol video systems in the vehicles. Even if they weren’t I don’t think local citizens would have any problem with the expenditure
given the additional protection it would offer police against false claims etc. So, why don’t San Diego patrol vehicles have video systems? All I can imagine is it would make it impossible for cut and paste statements like “subject consented to search of their vehicle” or”subject made a suspicious movement” or “during a cursory weapons search” blah blah blah to be added to arrest reports.

By: Mister DNA

Mister DNA — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:57 +0000

I agree with SJE. Not only does videotaping interrogations protect suspects, it protects cops, as well. But I seriously doubt many cops are concerned about protecting suspects. I remember watching something on Court TV about the 1991 Buddhist Temple Massacre in Arizona. Not only did an innocent person confess to that crime (after being fed details of the crime by detectives), the actual culprit had committed a murder in another county in which yet another person had confessed.

By: jwh

jwh — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:11 +0000

No, Max, I have no recollection of that…….but what about waterboarding……..Rumsfeld must be behind this somewhere……and W, too.

By: libarbarian

libarbarian — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:16:03 +0000

They’re all guilty of something.
Everyone is guilty of something.

/snark ….. or is it? *insert ominous music here*

By: Les

Les — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:28:54 +0000

Now there’s a guy with respect for civil liberties.

I might have believed that before his FISA vote.

By: Frank N Stein

Frank N Stein — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:50:20 +0000

These things help expose the lie that government is by and for “the people”. If in fact we were in charge, there would be no question that we could enact measures to ensure those who we pay to perform their government-monopolized duties are doing them properly. Basic competency and professionalism is an expectation and requirement for continued employment in most market-based situations. It’s the punchline to a joke when it concerns civil “servants” and the like (public school teachers, etc).

By: Max

Max — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:26:53 +0000

You’ll remember that Barack Obama, as a state senator in Illinois, brought a bill to videotape interrogations to the senate floor and it passed overwhelmingly. Now there’s a guy with respect for civil liberties.

By: Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Quick Hits

Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Quick Hits — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:23:30 +0000

[...] Why interrogations should be videotaped. In case you are unaware, one of the things that Obama helped to enact in Illinois was just this [...]

By: Chance

Chance — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:12:36 +0000

Agree with SJE above.

Here’s another thought: As phones, cameras, and electronics in general become more compact and integrated into practically everything, and computer memory becomes even cheaper than it already is, how will police stop suspects from videotaping their own interrogations? You can buy James Bond type cameras built into eyeglasses that only a careful inspection would reveal. Heck, people are already starting to implant memory storage devices in their own bodies, (usually for medical reasons) recording devices are no longer such a sci-fi type stretch.

By: andyinsdca

andyinsdca — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:47:35 +0000

ALL interactions between the police and citizens need to videotaped, not just interrogations.

By: SJE

SJE — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:46:10 +0000

Radley: I thought a “by the books interrogation” was one where they used the yellow pages to prevent bruising when they punch you.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:44:38 +0000

I get an “Error 404 – Not Found” when I click on “Last year”.

I don’t think the police or prison industry should be allowed to “lobby”.