• About Computer Employment Applications (CEA)
• The Value of CEA
• Additional attributes of the CEA
• Primary Areas of Inquiry
• Details on the Areas of Inquiry in CEA Series 705
• CEA Demo
• CEA Development
• What Applicants Say About CEA
• Survey of 4,151 Applicants Who Completed the CEA
• When To Use The CEA Pre-employment Interview
• Using CEA as the Primary Job Application
• Using CEA After the Written Job Application
• Maximizing the Value of CEA
• Research
• Independent research by a U.S. Federal Agency Validates the Effectiveness of the
• CEA Interactive Interview - 566 interviewed
• Study - 130 Applicants Interviewed
• Study - 171 Applicants Interviewed - Federal Bureau of Prisons Study - 209 Consecutive Sheriff Department Applicants
• Study - 147 Applicants for a Financial Institution
• Study - 100 Police Department Applicants
• Study - Comparison of Information from CEA's Drug Interview to the Outcome of the
• Applicant's Drug Test - November 2006
• Comparison of Applicant Substance Abuse Admissions to Probable Urinalysis Test
• Outcomes (Excerpts from Research Study)
• Additional Case Examples of CEA Applicant Interviews
• CEA Report
• Fees

There is nothing problematic or objectionable about police, when questioning suspects, in downplaying or minimizing the moral culpability of their alleged criminal activity. I find there was nothing improper in these and other similar transcript examples where [the detective] minimized [the accused's] moral responsibility. At no time did he suggest that a confession by the subject would result in reduced or minimal legal consequences. Those questions did not minimize the offence anywhere close to the extent of oppression within the meaning of Oickle and other authorities. In using the words "this is your opportunity" to tell your story, and statements to the effect that "your credibility is at its highest now", and in asserting to the accused that he would not be as credible ten months down the road at trial when he had "spoken to lawyers", and the like, the detective was making an approach to the accused's intellect and conscience.

1. Direct Positive Confrontation
2. The Use of Deceit by the Interviewer
3. Minimizing Moral Responsibility
4. Moral Inducements
5. Condemning Others in Order to Ease the Responsibility of the Suspect
6. Commenting on the Accused's Credibility at his Trial
7. Highlighting the Accused's Redeeming Qualities
8. Quid Pro Quo
9. Comments on the Legal Process
10. Right to Silence
11. Power Imbalance

• Court rejects testimony of Dr. Richard Leo on false confession issue
• Expert testimony on fabrication of confessions by inmate informants rejected
• Court rejects claim confession was involuntary due to marijuana and alcohol use
• Court upholds Miranda waiver by 15 year old
• Court upholds Miranda waiver of 14 year old
• Appeals court reverses admissibility of a confession from an 11 year old because of the interrogator's behavior
• Ambiguous request to stop the interrogation - "this conversation is over"
• Ambiguous request for an attorney - "I don't know if I need an attorney or not"
• Court rejects claim that officers created an environment that caused defendant's will to be overborne
• Court finds that interrogator conduct "overbore" defendant's will and rules that the confession is inadmissible
• "Custody does not occur merely because the suspect submits to and fails a polygraph test"
• Confession suppressed when suspect questioned in his home without Miranda advisement
• Telling the suspect that the prosecutor will be advised of their cooperation does not constitute a promise of leniency; suggesting the homicide was an accident or self-defense was not coercive
• What constitutes a threat during an interrogation?
• What constitutes permissible deception by the police during an interrogation?
• A fake polygraph test did not render involuntary the defendant's incriminating statement
• Can an interrogator tell a suspect "this is just between you and me" when, in fact, the interrogation is being recorded and the recording will be used against the suspect?
• What IQ score precludes a defendant from making a knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights?
• No federal requirement to electronically record interrogation
• Confession ruled inadmissible because of faulty advisement of rights
• Juvenile's confession ruled inadmissible because of several violations of the Texas Family Code
• Confession found inadmissible due to threats and promises from the investigators
• Court rejects opinion of defense expert, Dr. Christopher Lamps, on coerced confession and waiver of rights issues
• Value of video taping the interrogation
• Court finds confession inadmissible because the Miranda rights were not properly explained to the defendant - a 15 year-old with "borderline intellectual functioning"
• Interrogators misrepresentation of evidence is insufficient to make the otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible
• Interrogator's repeated references that he could help the suspect rendered the confession involuntary
• The interrogator's implication of leniency in exchange for cooperation is not coercive
• Telling the suspect that if he tells the truth it could be in his benefit to do so and exaggerating the strength of the evidence against him does not render a confession involuntary
• Court refuses to let Dr. Jarvis Wright testify on false confessions
• Court rejects claims that there was an unambiguous request for an attorney; that the defendant's mental problems caused him to be more receptive to police coercion; and, that the fact the police lied about the evidence was coercive

• Applicant Personal Information
• Education
• Employment Activities (Work History)
• Military History
• Dishonest Conduct
• Integrity
• Criminal Record
• Undetected Crimes
• Driving Convictions Last 5 years
• Pending Law Enforcement Charges
• Use of Drugs Illegally (in compliance with ADA)
• Purchase/Sale of Drugs Illegally
• Alcohol Use (job related - in compliance with ADA)

R. v. Grant
R. v. Suberu
R. v. Harrison
R. v. Shepherd

1. A "revised framework" for determining the admissibility of evidence obtained after a Charter violation. 
2. Re-wording of the definition of "detention."
3. Four points-of-reference regarding "how to apply" the revised framework.

- upon entering the store, you see the officer, one employee, and two men.
- the officer is at a cash register talking to the store employee and one of the men (suspect #1)
- the second man (suspect #2) walks past you and says, "He did this, not me, so I guess I can go." This man walks to the door and is leaving.

1. Interrogation strategies change during interrogation, sometimes from one extreme to another.
2. Release is a prominent factor that affects a suspect's decision whether to confess or not.
3. A series of inducements do occur during most interrogations. The key is the strength of the inducment and the relationship between that strength and the decision to confess.

1.                sec. 503 Criminal Code,
2.               sec 515(11) C.C.,
3.            sec. 9 Charter, and
4.             R. v. Oickle (2000) SC.C.
5.              R. v. Storrey (1990) SC.C.
6.           R. v. Singh (2007) SC.C.
7.           R. v. Manninen (1987) SC.C.

• A 13 year-old girl was beaten to death.
• DNA evidence linked the accused to the crime scene.
• The accused was arrested and informed of his right to counsel. Legal Aid was contacted and a Legal Aid lawyer gave him advice in less than 5 minutes.
• The accused confessed.
• The BCCA excluded the confession because: the Legal Aid advice was insufficient, constituting a sec. 10(b) Charter violation

• Courts limit or reject the testimony of expert witnesses Richard Leo, Richard Ofshe, Saul Kassin, Mark Castanza, Susan Garvey, Deborah Davis and Rosalyn Shultz on false confession issues
• Dr. Christian Meissner testifies on false confession issues - Jury finds defendant guilty
• Police misrepresent evidence against suspect - Court upholds confession - two cases
• Employer found guilty by jury of false imprisonment
• Does the length of the interrogation impact on the admissibility of the confession?
• Interrogator statements - what can and cannot be said
• Mental impairment and IQ re the waiver of Miranda rights
• Corroborating elements in an arson case
• Unambiguous request for lawyer
• Do the Miranda warnings require the interrogator to tell the suspect he has the right to an attorney during the interrogation?
• The Value of Recording Interrogations

1. Are post-consultation statements admissible after pre-consultation questioning violates section 10(b) Charter?
2. How can you negate the effects of the section 10(b) Charter violation? How can you rectify the pre-consultation Charter violation?

1. If the two parts of the interrogation are connected the post-consultation statements will likely be inadmissible. If they are disconnected, the post-consultation statement will not be affected by the Charter violation and will likely be admissible (assuming the statement is voluntary).
2. You can make a "fresh start" following the lawyer consultation by severing the pre-consultation and post-consultation questioning.

1. The police are not immune from liability under the law of negligence and the tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada.
2. Police officers owe a duty of care to suspects. Their conduct during an investigation should be measured against the standard of how a reasonable officer in like circumstances would have acted. Police officers may be accountable for harm resulting to a suspect if they fail to meet this standard.

1. important points-of-reference for frontline police officers, and
2. significant case law review for research purposes.

1. Invoking the right to silence does not automatically end an interrogation.
2. It is not a sec. 7 Charter violation for the police to ignore an arrested person's right to remain silent and to persuade the accused to change his mind.
3. Considerable persistent questioning is allowed after the right to silence is invoked.
4. The police are entitled to continue questioning after the right to silence is invoked "so long as their conduct does not reach the point where the suspect's will is overborne and his statement is no longer voluntary." An "overborne will" is defined as being "deprived of an operating mind." It means incapable of making meaningful decisions - the free will to make choices. In other words, as long as the accused has an operating mind and has decision-making capacity, "persistent" interrogation may continue.
5. A sec. 7 Charter violation occurs only if an arrested person invokes the right to remain silent and the police interrogation techniques cause the arrested person to lose his decision-making capacity. In Canada, an interrogation must stop only when the suspect's operating mind is deprived - when he loses the ability to make sound decisions.

1. common law "confession rule" relating to voluntariness
   
2. Charter provisions including right to silence, right to counsel, reason for arrest and sec. 24(2)
   
3. Statutory protections created by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, including section 146 YCJA.

9-news in Syracuse NY reports how local police attend Reid training to step up their efforts to protect children after a music teacher was arraigned on charges of abusing half of the children at a local school.

While defendant's factual allegations are accurate, he does not show that any of the state's conduct coerced his admissions or rendered the confession involuntary. Our review of the videotapes and the verbatim transcript does not show the officers exercising any type of coercion which would at all indicate that this confession was involuntary. To the contrary, the vast majority of the interview was extremely benign on the part of the officers and Blank was treated very well throughout. In response to defendant's specific examples of coercive conduct, it is evident from the record that defendant did not request food during the interview, during which, notably, none of the interrogators stopped to eat a meal. Despite intermittent statements expressing fatigue and or physical discomfort, defendant never requested to terminate the interview. Moreover, for the most part, officers accommodated defendant when possible, providing him drinks, allowing him to use the restroom and heating the interrogation room. While at first the officers denied defendant's request to smoke, after he smoked a cigarette while he was alone in the bathroom, they continued to let him smoke, and he was allowed to smoke before he confessed to any crimes. As to the references to defendant's deceased mother, appeals to a defendant's emotions and/or religious beliefs typically do not render an ensuing confession involuntary. See e.g., Johnson v. Trigg, 28 F.3d 639, 644-45 (7th Cir.1994) (confession voluntary even though 14-year-old defendant of below average intelligence saw police arrest terminally ill mother before confessing); United States v. Miller, 984 F.2d 1029, 1031-32 (9th Cir.1993) (confession voluntary even though officer, a Mormon bishop, lectured to Mormon defendant that religious tenets required repentance and restitution for wrongdoing). This claim lacks merit.

Defendant also claims that the officers' relentless exhortations that he tell the truth in conjunction with false suggestions indicating that they possessed forensic evidence of his guilt, illegally coerced the confession. Defendant claims that during the interrogation, officers used the word "truth" no less than 30 times, including several communications in which they urged that he answer their questions truthfully. Courts have routinely held that a mild exhortation to tell the truth, or a remark that if the defendant cooperates the officer will "do what he can" or "things will go easier," will not negate the voluntary nature of a confession. State v. Petterway, 403 So.2d 1157, 1159-60 (La.1981); State v. Magee, 93-0643, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3d Cir.10/5/94), 643 So.2d 497, 499; State v. English, supra at 1364.

In this case, although the officers repeatedly admonished defendant to tell the truth throughout the interrogation, they did not promise him anything in exchange for the confession except for the suggestion that he could clear his conscience. Notably, in State v. Lavalais, supra at 1053, this Court held that an officer's comments to the defendant that he would likely receive more favorable treatment if he confessed as opposed to failing a polygraph examination did not constitute inducements rendering the subsequent confession involuntary. See also State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990) (advice to defendant from polygraph examiner that it would be "in his best interest to tell the truth" does not render ensuing statement inadmissible). In this situation, defendant fails to show the existence of coercion rendering the statement involuntary.
Click here for the complete decision

"Here, the trial court found that the offer to Moore (to work with the police in exchange for a favorable recommendation to the prosecutor) was made post- Miranda, but not necessarily before or after the confession (which was also post- Miranda). A mere promise of leniency, without more, is not enough to invalidate a confession. State v. Riley, 19 Wn. App 289, 297-98, 576 P.2d 1311 (1978). At best, all that was promised here was a recommendation of leniency, which was offered in exchange for informant work, not for the confession. Because no evidence of coercion for a confession is in the record, the findings of fact support the conclusion that the offer did not invalidate Moore's confession.

Moore also claims that her statements were not voluntary because there was a "display of a weapon." Appellant's Br. at 10. The State responds that no testimony indicated that weapons were drawn while the officers spoke with Moore post- Miranda. The mere fact that the officers were armed, as officers usually are, was not in itself coercive."

Click here for the complete decision.

Failure to allow 17 year old to call his mother nullifies confession

In the case of People v. Westmorland, the Illinois Appellate court upheld the suppression of a 17 year old's confession, stating that:

"There were, however, some quite unsettling aspects of the interrogation. The officers made no attempt to locate defendant's parents when they arrested him and also denied his two requests during the interview to speak to his mother. Defendant was "immature" for his age and "wide-eyed." With defendant already vulnerable from the complete denial of parental contact, Galason raised his voice during the interview and said, "I don't give a shit if you go to jail or not." This was the conduct that, in the trial court's words, "terrified" defendant. Under the totality of the circumstances, which encompass both defendant's individual psychological makeup as well as the officers' conduct, we agree with the trial court that defendant's will was overborne."
Click here for the complete decision