[In this article, the author makes several misrepresentations about the Reid Technique – the italicized text below has been added as commentary by John E. Reid and Associates]

• link to the article is at the end of this document

The author describes how law enforcement officers can lie to a subject about the evidence in a case, for example, telling the subject that the police have a witness who said that he saw the suspect start the fire. The legal permission for police deception traces back to a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Frazier v. Cupp. In this case, an interrogating officer falsely told the suspect that his cousin, Rawls, had already confessed and implicated him in the crime. The suspect was initially reluctant to talk but eventually provided a full confession after this deceptive tactic.

The Supreme Court upheld the confession, stating: "The fact that the police misrepresented the statements that Rawls had made is, while relevant, insufficient, in our view, to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible". This ruling established that some level of deception by police does not automatically render a confession involuntary. The Court emphasized that these cases must be decided by viewing the "totality of the circumstances".

Consequently, this decision has been used throughout the country to sanction police deception in interrogation rooms. Officers can claim they have DNA evidence that does not exist or tell a suspect that their friend or co-defendant has already confessed, even when that is not true.

In this case, an interrogating officer falsely told the suspect that his cousin, Rawls, had already confessed and implicated him in the crime. The suspect was initially reluctant to talk but eventually provided a full confession after this deceptive tactic.

.However, confessions must remain voluntary. When determining whether a confession was coerced, police deception can be considered, but it is not the only relevant factor. If lies are considered extreme or combined with coercion such as threats, physical intimidation, or denying food or drink, the confession could be deemed involuntary and therefore inadmissible.

The False Confession Technique

The Reid Technique serves as the standard interrogation method implemented in virtually every police department across the country. The procedure involves isolating suspects from familiar surroundings in windowless interrogation rooms. Interrogators directly confront suspects with accusations of guilt, cutting off denials and insisting they already know the truth.

Officers float theories about why the crime occurred, supporting these narratives with evidence or testimony they do not actually possess. The primary goal is not to uncover facts but to elicit incriminating statements from suspects officers believe are guilty.

The Reid technique teaches investigators never to deny the subject any of their rights. If the subject is in custody and asks for an attorney, the questioning must stop; if the subject states that he/she does not want to answer any more questions, the questioning should stop.

It is important, as the United States Supreme Court pointed out, that interrogations occur in a quiet, private environment. The US Supreme Court in Culombe v. Connecticut (1961) 367 U.S. 568,579 stated that, “Often the place of questioning will have to be a police interrogation room because it is important to assure the proper atmosphere of privacy and non-distraction if questioning is to be made productive.”

The author appears to suggest the interrogation of the subject is the initial step in the Reid process. To the contrary, the initial step in the RT process is to conduct a non-accusatory investigative interview.

It should be made clear that the Reid Technique always begins with a non-accusatory, information-gathering investigative interview.

We have taught investigators for decades that the initial contact with a subject (victim, witness or suspect) should be a non-accusatory, non-confrontational interview the purpose of which is to develop information – to allow the subject to tell their story, and to provide any information they may have as to the who, what, when, where, why and how of the issue under investigation. This information can then be evaluated in relation to the available investigative facts and evidence.

• Throughout the interview, the investigator should maintain a neutral, objective fact-finder demeanor. During the interview, the investigator should not engage in any accusatory or confrontational behaviors.
• The interview should begin with casual conversation, biographical information, employment information, etc., to acclimate the subject to the interview process, develop rapport and develop the subject’s behavioral baseline
• The investigator should use open-ended questions to develop the subject’s statement, story, version of events, or explanation of what happened. In the interview, the investigator should do about 20% of the talking, and the subject should do about 80%..

• The essential element to evaluate during an investigative interview is whether or not the case facts and evidence support the subject’s story or contradict what the subject has stated.
• For example, if the subject states that he was not at the victim’s home on the day of the murder, but video from the apartment building across the street shows him entering the subject’s home on the day of the murder, the fact that he lied about that outweighs any verbal, paralinguistic or nonverbal behavioral responses that he might make during the interview.
• If the subject offers an alibi, attempt to verify its authenticity.

• The investigator should evaluate the subject’s possible involvement in the issue under investigation based on the investigation, case facts, factual evidence and information developed during the interview/investigation
• Interrogation should only take place when the information developed during the interview and the investigation clearly indicate the subject’s probable involvement in the commission of the crime.

Interrogation should only occur when the information developed from the investigation and the subject’s interview clearly indicate their involvement in th commission of the issue under investigation.

California rulings reinforce the idea that deceptive statements by police are allowed, provided they do not involve threats or promises that would likely induce a false confession. In People v. Chutan, California courts further reinforced that officers may use deceptive tactics during interrogations.

However, confessions must remain voluntary. When determining whether a confession was coerced, police deception can be considered, but it is not the only relevant factor. If lies are considered extreme or combined with coercion such as threats, physical intimidation, or denying food or drink, the confession could be deemed involuntary and therefore inadmissible.

Click Here for the Reid policy regarding misrepresenting evidence during and interrogation