quote:

Originally posted by sse:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
I've learned there are many people who think it is either unlikely or illegal for LEO's to lie during an investigation. There is no such constraint.

As a cop we were allowed to lie to people, we were not allowed to manufacture evidence, eg fingerprint cards-you’re in an interview and you drop a FP card on the table with the suspects prints, implying you have his from a scene…big no no, can’t do that. But you can tell him you have his prints. (That’s a really bad ruse-if the badguy knows he wasn’t there-he absolutely knows you are lying to him)

Thanks, I'm sure there is a lot of nuance.

I spoke at length with cops in the UK about interview and interrogation laws there. Yes, you can't lie to a subject of the crown, but you can imply that you have evidence. Here's an example:

Officer: "We have your fingerprints at the crime scene. How'd they get there if you weren't there yourself?"
Not allowed if indeed latent fingerprints weren't actually recovered.

Officer: "Is there any reason why we'd find your fingerprints at the scene of the crime?" Allowed as the investigator never explicited claimed that non-existent evidence was recovered.

I believe having the ability to mislead suspects is a useful, valid, and constitutionally permissible tool, but (like all investigative tools) can be abused. Can you imagine all the situations where investigations could be stopped cold by criminals asking something as simple as: Are you a cop? Narcotics investigations, Murder for hire investigations, just about every kind of undercover investigation conceivable. There's lines that can and should be well defined, but there's others that are simply unrealistic.

If I had a dime for every time I asked a suspect “is there any chance at all that we’ll find (insert video
/DNA/prints/etc) I’d have a house made of dimes.

You never, ever lie to a person you’re interviewing or you risk losing all rapport and credibility.