A person who finds himself in a position where they are speaking with a police officer needs to know that they can lie to you. During the investigation of a crime, it is constitutionally permissible for police to use deception in the course of their duties. The United States Supreme Court has expounded on this issue in a number of cases.
In Oregon v. Mathiason, officers falsely told a burglary suspect they had lifted his fingerprints at the crime scene. 429 US 492 (1977). The suspect subsequently confessed, and the court held that this deception did not invalidate the confession. In Frazier v. Cupp, police told a murder suspect that his accomplice had been arrested and had confessed, implicating him in the crime. 394 US 731 (1969). Although police used no overt deception in Moran v. Burbine, 475 US 462 (1986), the court stated, "We have never read the Constitution to require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights."
The most common way this deception is used by officers during investigations into accusations of domestic violence is when officers separate the parties to take statements and collect other evidence. While the parties are separated, officers tell them that the other person has made statements that they have not actually made. Normally stating that evidence that has been collected inculpates them of a battery. In these situations, it is best to not give a statement as the statement can hurt the defense later if a case is filed. The important lesson is that during questioning, do not rely on officers' statements as being truthful because it is a common, legal and effective investigative technique to lie.
If you have been charged with Battery, Battery Domestic Violence, or any crime related to a Domestic incident, or if a protective order (TPO or EPO) has been issued against you, please visit gerobinsonlaw.com or call 702-233-4225 for help.
In Oregon v. Mathiason, officers falsely told a burglary suspect they had lifted his fingerprints at the crime scene. 429 US 492 (1977). The suspect subsequently confessed, and the court held that this deception did not invalidate the confession. In Frazier v. Cupp, police told a murder suspect that his accomplice had been arrested and had confessed, implicating him in the crime. 394 US 731 (1969). Although police used no overt deception in Moran v. Burbine, 475 US 462 (1986), the court stated, "We have never read the Constitution to require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights."
The most common way this deception is used by officers during investigations into accusations of domestic violence is when officers separate the parties to take statements and collect other evidence. While the parties are separated, officers tell them that the other person has made statements that they have not actually made. Normally stating that evidence that has been collected inculpates them of a battery. In these situations, it is best to not give a statement as the statement can hurt the defense later if a case is filed. The important lesson is that during questioning, do not rely on officers' statements as being truthful because it is a common, legal and effective investigative technique to lie.
If you have been charged with Battery, Battery Domestic Violence, or any crime related to a Domestic incident, or if a protective order (TPO or EPO) has been issued against you, please visit gerobinsonlaw.com or call 702-233-4225 for help.
No comments:
Post a Comment