RESEARCH FORUM: VIDEOTAPING INTERROGATIONS & CONFESSIONS

    RESEARCH FORUM: VIDEOTAPING INTERROGATIONS & CONFESSIONS   

                               By

                     William A. Geller, J.D.

                       Associate Director

                 Police Executive Research Forum

                         Washington, DC.

     Every aspect of American society feels the impact of video

technology. No longer just for documenting baby's first steps,

video cameras now play an increasingly important role in the

criminal justice system. Law enforcement's use of audio-video

technology ranges from providing department store surveillance to

documenting police field stops of suspects and their

interrogations in station house interview rooms.

     In March 1993, the National Institute of Justice published

the results of a preliminary study on the use of video technology

in criminal interrogations. (1) The study provides a useful guide

for departments in deciding whether to use videotaping. It

identifies questions to consider when developing a videotaping

policy, procedural issues to resolve, and the perceived effects

of videotaped interrogations on case preparation and court

proceedings.

THE STUDY    

     In the three-part study, Geller first reviewed the relevant

literature to define the issues involved in videotaping

confessions and interrogations. Then, he surveyed police and

sheriffs' departments nationwide to identify those that do and do

not videotape, followed by a phone survey on practices employed

and practitioners' perceptions of the efficiency of such

videotaping. Finally, Geller conducted indepth interviews of

criminal justice practitioners (including police, prosecutors,

defense attorneys, and judges) in 11 cities and counties where

confessions and interrogations were videotaped to determine their

perceptions about the practice and its effects.

THE RESULTS

     Geller's exploration of videotaping practices employed by

police across the country brought out a number of important

issues. For example, each police department had to decide when to

tape interrogations, whether tapes should be made overtly or

covertly, how the use of tapes affected prosecutors' and defense

attorneys' case preparation and court proceedings, and how the

taping influenced the interviewers' choice of interrogation

tactics.

OVERVIEW

     The survey revealed that in 1990, approximately one-third of

law enforcement agencies serving populations of 50,000 or more

were videotaping at least some interrogations; that number was

expected to swell to more than 60 percent of such departments by

1993. Larger departments used video technology more than smaller

ones, perhaps because of budget constraints or caseload

considerations. Most of the departments surveyed in 1990 had been

using video technology for interrogations for at least 3 years,   

and 41 percent had done so for at least 5 years. Generally,

departments had moved gradually from written reports to

audiotapes and then to video documentation.

TYPES OF CASES

     Videotaping suspects' statements and interrogations is most

prevalent in felony cases--the more severe the felony, the more

likely videotaping will be used. Homicide suspects' statements

were taped by 83 percent of the surveyed agencies that used

videotaping. The majority of the videotaping departments also

made some use of video documentation of interrogations in the

other types of violent crime cases--rape, aggravated battery or

assault, and armed robbery--as well as in drunk driving cases. 

REASONS FOR TAPING

     Interrogations and confessions were taped for a variety of

reasons. Many surveyed agencies sought to refute defense

attorneys' criticisms of police interrogation techniques and

challenges to the completeness and accuracy of written

confessions or audiotaped statements. Others cited a desire to

show clearly that suspects confessed voluntarily. Videotaped

statements also served to remind detectives of important details

when testifying in court.

     At the same time, strong arguments were made against

videotaping. These arguments were advanced primarily by

practitioners who had never used videotaping and had no firsthand

knowledge of its costs and benefits. Those opposed to such video

recordings believed that suspects are more afraid to talk freely

in front of a camera, knowing that every detail could be seen and

heard in court. Some departments also cited the prohibitive costs

involved in purchasing and maintaining equipment, remodeling

interview rooms, and storing tapes.

     Another concern revealed by the interviews was the fear that

introduction of video technology in court would result in

required taping of all statements in most serious felony cases.

Detectives worried that courts would suppress nonvideotaped

statements or that judges and juries would find written

confessions unconvincing.

     In fact, Geller's survey found that 70 percent of the

agencies found it no harder to present nonvideo-taped confessions

and statements in court, even after introducing videotapes in

other cases. Defense attorneys sometimes tried to insinuate that

confessions were intentionally not taped because they couldn't

withstand the close scrutiny, but the argument rarely persuaded

judges to suppress such statements. Thirty percent of agencies

surveyed, however, did find judges more reluctant to admit

nonvideotaped confessions after the video program began.

     Those who were apprehensive about being required to

videotape all statements generally had never videotaped an

interrogation. Most video users did not object to taping all

statements; they usually believed videotaping was so beneficial

that they employed it uniformly and avoided the selective taping

issue entirely. Still, Geller speculates selective taping could

cause problems and merits further evaluation.

OVERT VS. COVERT TAPING

     Very few agencies in the survey used covert taping methods.

Most agencies either informed suspects that a tape was being made

or simply left the camera or microphone in plain view during the

interrogation.

     Covert taping brings up some sticky ethical questions, such

as privacy rights, but proponents say the benefits still should

be considered. One obvious benefit is that suspects who are

reluctant to talk on camera can be recorded speaking freely and

willingly. Covert recording also reduces the distraction to the

interviewer and interviewee of having the equipment and camera

operator in the interview room.

     Other considerations may lead departments to decide against

surreptitious taping of station house interrogations. State and

local laws might prohibit it, even though Federal law does not. A

"reasonable expectation of privacy," a Federal constitutional

doctrine, does not exist during a station house interrogation.

     Another issue is the futility of taping covertly when word

spreads rapidly through the jails and on the street. Finally,

such taping practices may not support the fair and just image a

department wants to project to the community.

     The desire to minimize distractions has led many departments

to use covert techniques, even when suspects were made aware that

the interview was being documented on video tape. In this way,

some benefits of covert taping are gained without accompanying

ethical or other drawbacks.

PORTION OF THE INTERVIEW TO TAPE

     Geller found a sharp division of opinion among practitioners

over whether to tape the entire interrogation or just to record a

restated summary, or recap, of a previously unrecorded

interrogation. Recaps generally include exculpatory, as well as

incriminating, statements. Full interrogations last 2 to 4 hours

on average, whereas recaps average 15 to 45 minutes. In this era

of shrinking budgets, the cost of purchasing blank tapes and

creating transcripts--if judges and the attorneys on either side

request transcripts--merits significant consideration, but there

are other more significant arguments on both sides.

     Defense attorneys generally favor recording full

interrogations and object to recaps filled with leading

questions. They believe full recordings help to keep police

mindful of suspects' rights. Defense attorneys and judges assert

that recaps often minimize defendants' expressions of remorse.

Because the defendant's story typically has been repeated often

during the preceding interrogation, the emotional edge reflective

of remorse can be lost during the recorded recap.

     Many detectives appreciate the capture of seemingly trivial

comments that could later prove crucial to the case. Full

recordings can also discredit accusations that coercion was used

to obtain confessions.

     On the other side of the issue, detectives who use recaps

prefer getting concise and clearly incriminating statements. Some

investigators object to full tapes that usually begin with

denials of guilt, which are useful to the defense. Those using

recaps can rebut defense charges of coercion by describing what

preceded the taped statement.

     In rebuttal, advocates of taping full interviews contend

that juries and judges expect interrogations to begin with a

suspect's protestations of innocence. Thus, they eventually find

a confession most credible if they can follow the flow from

denial of guilt to the moment of transition and through to

admission and a confession.

PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF TAPING

     Once a taping program has been instituted, a number of

decisions need to be made about equipment and maintenance, and

certain procedures must be established. For example, agencies

must decide who has authority to determine which interrogations

will be videotaped and whether comprehensive written guidelines

are necessary.

     Most departments surveyed allowed the interrogating officer

to decide whether to tape, some gave that authority to the

sergeant, while still others always taped in specific types of

cases. Interview rooms might need to be remodeled to accommodate

video equipment, which could consist of high-quality consumer

products or professional television equipment. Geller's study

describes a variety of ways in which the surveyed agencies

handled these and other issues.

EFFECTS OF VIDEOTAPING

     The bottom line in any decision about videotaping

confessions and interrogations is whether tapes are useful and

within legitimate bounds of fairness in preparing and prosecuting

cases. Geller's study revealed a generally positive perception of

videotaping among criminal justice practitioners who have used

it.

     Prosecutors across the board said that videotaped

interrogations and confessions help them to assess the State's

case, prepare for trial, and conduct plea negotiations. The

videotapes capture subtle, often nonverbal, details missed in

written transcripts and audiotapes.

     Defense attorneys, however, had mixed views. Because

videotaped statements are more difficult for the defense to

attack than written transcripts or audiotapes, some defense

attorneys disliked the strategic edge video tapes give to

prosecutors. Others, though, appreciated the details video

recordings supply and the fact that they can also help clients to

remember important details. Seeing the demeanor and

sophistication of the defendant helps defense attorneys to

determine whether to put their clients on the witness stand.

     As evidence, it is somewhat easier to secure admission of

videotaped confessions than written confessions because

prosecutors can demonstrate the voluntary nature of the suspect's

statement. As for the effect on convictions and sentences, police

departments and prosecutors reported that videotaped

interrogations helped them to negotiate more guilty pleas and

longer sentences and secure more convictions. However, tapes

sometimes work for the defense, too, such as by indicating that a

confession was coerced or by leading a judge to impose a lesser

sentence on a demonstrably contrite defendant.

CONCLUSION

     Based upon this initial, exploratory study, it appears that

criminal justice practitioners generally find videotaping to be a

useful tool. Videos help to assess a suspect's guilt or

innocence, encourage fair treatment of suspects and respect for

their civil rights, reduce the stress on officers who must defend

their interrogation techniques in court, and capture important

details lost through other recording methods. Thus, video

technology used in this aspect of police operations appears to

simultaneously serve three often disparate goals of the criminal

justice system--effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy.

ENDNOTE

     (1)  William A. Geller's full report titled "Police

Videotaping of Suspect Interrogations and Confessions: A

Preliminary Examination of Issues and Practices" is available

from the Police Executive Research Forum, 2300 M Street NW.,

Suite 910, Washington, DC 20037 (202) 466-7820. A shorter version

of the report was published by the National Institute of Justice,

which funded the underlying study, in March 1993 (Request NCJ #

139962).