BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT. DATE ISSUED: February 28, 2005 GENERAL ORDER I-18 PURPOSE

Similar documents
SUBJECT: Sample Interview & Interrogation Policy

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE

BALTIMORE CITY SCHOOLS Baltimore School Police Force MIRANDA WARNINGS

Court of Common Pleas

ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION PROCEDURES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS

Miranda Rights. Interrogations and Confessions

ASHEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY MANUAL

The Law of Interrogation in North Carolina

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLOCKS, HAROLD W. L., Judge of the Superior Court.

DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J.

Case 3:16-cr JJB-EWD Document 26 05/15/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Marquette University Police Department

Case 3:07-cr KES Document 15 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Constitutional Law - Right to Counsel

Criminal Justice 100

California Bar Examination

LESSON PLAN FOR CONDUCTING A UNIT OF INSTRUCTION IN MIRANDA v. ARIZONA YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

DECEPTION Moran v. Burbine*

Case 1:08-cr SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ALI-ABA Live Teleseminar/Audio Webcast Challenging Confessions in Juvenile Delinquency Cases February 25, 2009

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE DELAWARE STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT

ROLE AND AUTHORITY WRITTEN DIRECTIVE: 1.10 EFFECTIVE DATE: REVISION DATE: SUPERSEDES EDITION DATED:

Invocation of Miranda Rights: A Question of Fact?: Fare v. Michael C.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA Filed: 18 May 2004

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHTO. The indictment

A digest of twenty one (21) significant US Supreme Court decisions interpreting Miranda

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

Signature: Signed by GNT Date Signed: 12/10/13

DUTIES OF A MAGISTRATE. Presented by: Judge Suzan Thompson Justice of the Peace, Precinct #2 Matagorda County, Texas

Protocol 3: Domestic Violence Investigation

California Bar Examination

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 STATE OF MARYLAND BENJAMIN PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Page Page Page Page V. VI. VII.

ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge.

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

The. Department of Police Services

[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : OPINION. MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: January 20, 1999

3:00 A.M. THE MAGISTRATE THE JUVENILE THE STATEMENT KEEPING IT LEGAL

LONDONDERRY POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division PLEA AGREEMENT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

MR. FLYNN: Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court: This case concerns itself with the conviction of a defendant of two crimes of rape and

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

v No Macomb Circuit Court

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008

Jury Instructions THE SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER THE SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER THIS IS YOUR ORGANIZATION!

No. 05SA251, People v. Wood Miranda Interrogation - Due Process Right to Counsel Voluntariness

Say What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNIFORM LAW COMMISSIONERS' MODEL PUBLIC DEFENDER ACT

Defining & Interpreting Custodial Interrogation. Alexander Lindvall 2013 Adviser: K.M. Waggoner, Ph.D., J.D. Iowa State University

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. The State of New Hampshire. Thomas Auger Docket No. 01-S-388, 389 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

BILL AS INTRODUCED AND PASSED BY SENATE AND HOUSE S Page 1 of 11. Subject: Crimes; innocence protection; eyewitness identification

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,570. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Gary L. Clingman, District Judge

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2008

Recording Interrogations: Best Practice in Massachusetts

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PUBLIC INFORMATION FUNCTION

<Text of section added effective July 18, 2005>

Excerpts of Rulings on

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE

In Re: Herman L. Yoh, No Cncv (Norton, J., Jan. 31, 2005) STATE OF VERMONT Chittenden County, ss.: IN RE HERMAN L. YOH

Pasadena Police Department Policy Manual

American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary

Relationship between Polygraph, Right to Counsel, and Confessions: R. v. Chalmers (2009) 1 Ontario Court of Appeal By Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc.

Miranda Procedure Checklist. Requirements for a valid waiver of Miranda rights were described in Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S.

Chapter 11: Rights in Juvenile Proceedings

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ESSAY APPROACH. Bar Exam Doctor BAREXAMDOCTOR.COM. CRIMINAL LAW ESSAY

The Family Court Process for Children Charged with Criminal and Status Offenses

POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS

No. 112,329 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellant. vs. NORMAN C. BRAMLETT Defendant-Appellee

SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION

LEXSEE 2008 U.S. DIST. LEXIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. TYRONE L. TOOLS, JR., Defendant. CR KES

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc. v. ) No. SC APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY Honorable Jack A.L.

2017 CO 100. In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court concludes that the conversation

Is Silence Still Golden? The Implications of Berghuis v. Thompkins on the Right to Remain Silent

2009 VT 75. No On Appeal from v. District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit. Michael M. Christmas March Term, 2009

REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS

2017 CO 92. The supreme court holds that a translated Miranda warning, which stated that if

Definitions. Misconduct in Research

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

West Headnotes. Reversed and remanded. [1] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

Detentions And Photographing Detainees

Miranda and the Rehnquist Court: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far?

Transcription:

SUBJECT: INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATIONS PURPOSE 1 - The purpose of this General Order is to establish procedures to be used in interviews and interrogations. DEFINITION 2 - For the purpose of this Order, an "Interview" shall be that process by which information is obtained from a person contacted during a police investigation. An "Interrogation" is the process of questioning designed to obtain an admission or confession from a person suspected of a crime. POLICY 3 - Berkeley Police Officers are expected to actively seek information from victims, witnesses and suspects in order to aid the solution of the matter being investigated. No attempt shall be made to obtain a statement by force, threats, or promises. 4 - Interviews - Legal Restrictions PROCEDURE a. When an officer has not arrested an individual or otherwise taken the individual into "custody" in a manner which restricts the individual's freedom or ability to discontinue the conversation, the officer may ask whatever questions are necessary and pertinent. The key in this circumstance is custody. Where there is no "custody," the law places no restrictions on questioning. In other words, an unrestricted situation is when an officer talks to an individual in a voluntary, non-custodial setting, about crime conditions or leads. 5 - Interviews - Physical Limitations a. Frequently, the officer cannot select the ideal location for the interview and must conduct the interview under adverse conditions, e.g., an officer investigating a street crime may be hampered by weather conditions or crowds attracted to the scene. To overcome adverse conditions, the officer must control the communication process and elicit pertinent information immediately. In situations where there are distractions and confusion, the officer should gather only the basic facts. 6 - Interviews - Authority and Method *Highlighted text is new 1

a. Officers will, when possible, interview any person who may have the potential to supply information that relates to an incident under investigation. Interviews should be conducted at a place that is convenient and familiar to the person being interviewed, and as soon after the incident as is possible and practical. Officers will strive to conduct interviews in a manner which is low-pressure, informal, and causes the least amount of inconvenience to the person being interviewed. Officers shall be especially sensitive to victims of sexual assaults and violent crimes. b. In the interview, the officer must review all available information and be prepared with a logical, structured sequence of questioning (random questioning is seldom successful because it lacks direction, indicates unpreparedness, and reveals a lack of information). The officer must also be prepared to control and direct the interview. He/she must be prepared to evaluate the information as the interview progresses. The officer must also be familiar with the statutory elements of the criminal offense involved in order to solicit proper statements and to determine whether an offense occurred. 7 - Interview Guidelines a. Avoid specific questions. The objective of the officer is to get the victim or witness to describe their observations of an incident -- not to simply answer the officer's questions. b. Avoid yes/no questions. When an explanation can be given, more facts are likely to be given. c. Do not use leading questions. Leading or subjective questions often have the same effect as yes/no questions. They cause a person to say something they don't really mean. d. Avoid rapid-fire questions. Such questions often tend to make the subject confused and facts may be left out if questions cannot be answered in their entirety. e. Avoid conspicuous use of the notebook. When a person sees that their every comment is being noted, they may become hesitant to provide details. Officers may also become so intent in writing notes that they fail to actively listen; important details may be missed. f. Ending the interview. When it is apparent that the interview is ending, close the conversation in a polite and courteous manner, summarizing what has been covered and allowing the subject to correct or add any details as necessary. *Highlighted text is new 2

8 - Interrogations - Voluntariness a. No attempt will be made to obtain a statement by force, threats, or promises. Whether an accused or suspect will cooperate is left entirely to the individual. If he/she indicates at any time prior to or during questioning that he/she wishes to remain silent, or that he/she wants an attorney, all interrogation for evidence of guilt must cease. 9 - Interrogations - Inherent Coercion a. Courts, in holding a statement involuntary, have looked upon the following situations or characteristics as being "inherently coercive" without considering whether the suspect's individual will was overborne: (1) Physical abuse, or the threat of such abuse. (2) Extended period of incommunicado interrogation. (3) Unwillingness to permit the accused access to an attorney, family or friends, especially when such individuals make efforts to contact the subject. (4) Severe physical conditions under which the accused is interrogated. 10 - Interrogation - Warning of Rights All of the above situations are merely illustrative. It is not possible to predict what given situation, or set of circumstances will cause a court to label the episode as "inherently coercive". a. The law requires that, before any interrogation, an accused in-custody is entitled to be warned of his/her right to remain silent and his/her right to an attorney at this critical stage of the criminal prosecution. Failure to warn renders the product of interrogation (confession or admission) subject to exclusion. Both the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel may be waived; however, giving the warnings and obtaining a valid waiver is an appropriate way for an officer to discharge his/her responsibility in this regard. (1) A person must be advised of the names and official identity of the interviewing officer(s), the nature of the inquiry, and must be warned of his/her rights as set forth below, before the interview, and the person: (a) has been arrested and is in-custody; *Highlighted text is new 3

(b) (c) (d) is not under arrest, but an arrest is clearly intended either during or upon conclusion of the interview; is significantly restricted in his/her freedom of actions, and whether in-custody or not has been previously arrested or otherwise formally charged and prosecution is pending, when the subject matter of the interview concerns the pending charge, or related offense. 11 - Interrogation - Waiver of Rights a. Before a statement can be admitted into evidence, the State must prove that the suspect fully understood the warnings and freely decided to answer questions. A suspect, who remains silent after receiving warnings, has not agreed to be questioned. b. Use of the Berkeley Police Department "Admonition and Waiver" form. Inasmuch as the State will have to meet a "heavy burden" in establishing that an accused knowingly and intelligently waived his/her rights, it is desirable that the subject's acknowledgment of the warnings and his/her waiver be obtained in writing. The form should be used for this purpose. Completion of this form by the suspect provides documentary proof of both the warning and the waiver of rights. 12 - Interrogation - Use of Interpreters a. Use of an interpreter should be considered for an interview with either a subject or witness when there is doubt of the interviewee's ability to use and understand the English language and the interviewing officer is not qualified to use the principle language of the interviewee. Confessions may be excluded from court because they are given in English, without an interpreter, by subjects who allege at trial that they did not have a good understanding of the English language. A garbled interview with a State witness may contribute to the impeachment of that witness at trial. 13 - Statements a. When possible, written statements should be taken in all cases in which any confession or admission of guilt is obtained. Written confessions should be prepared in the first person in the language of the defendant. Where individuals giving signed statements cannot speak or read English, the statement, where possible, should be made in their native language. (1) The BPD statement form with Miranda Waiver, BPD 314-738A, shall be used when taking written statements from suspects. *Highlighted text is new 4

14 - Original documents in connection with an investigation shall be routed and filed in the manner set forth in General Order R-31. References: General Orders J-18, R-29, and R-31* Training and Information Bulletin #133 *Highlighted text is new 5