The Evolution of Law Enforcement Attitudes to Recording Custodial Interviews

Abstract

Year in and year out, in criminal trials throughout the country, trial court judges and juries listen to police and defendants testify to conflicting versions of what occurred when the defendants—then suspects—were brought to the stationhouse and questioned about their alleged participation in crimes.

Detectives conduct stationhouse interviews of persons arrested on suspicion of committing crimes in rooms set aside for that purpose. Most suspects are without funds to retain lawyers, and agree to proceed without legal representation. Later, after the suspects are indicted and have lawyers appointed, questions are presented about what occurred: Were the required Miranda warnings given at the outset? Were the suspects' requests for lawyers ignored? Were coercive tactics used? What was actually said and done behind those closed doors?

A movement is underway throughout the country to adopt a readily available and inexpensive method of putting an end to these disputes: making electronic recordings of the events that occur during the interrogations. Law enforcement agencies throughout the country have begun to install electronic equipment, audio, video or both, to produce recordings of the entire sessions.

Recordings of custodial interrogations almost always yield an incontestable record of what was said and done. They are therefore becoming recognized as a major improvement, which leads to more accurate and just results, and cost savings to all concerned. As a result, an increasing number of state legislatures have been enacting laws, and state supreme courts have begun issuing rulings which either require or strongly urge that electronic recordings be made of custodial interviews in major felony investigations.