The Right to Lie: Misinformation in Police Interrogations 

T

By Clare A’Hearn (PO ’26)

Allowing law enforcement to deceive a defendant is not in the interest of public safety, it is in the interest of closing cases.  In the United States, during an interrogation, a law enforcement officer is legally allowed to lie to an adult defendant regarding the evidence in the case in all 50 states. They can claim to have evidence that links the defendant to the crime even if there is no such evidence. This practice leads to wrongful convictions, particularly among vulnerable populations, and currently, there are efforts to make such misinformation illegal

The practice began with Frazier v. Cupp in 1969 when the Supreme Court made it legal for law enforcement to present false evidence during an interrogation. The decision was reached as police were able to obtain a confession from a suspect following lying about evidence. Psychology research supports that providing misinformation can lead to altered memories, beliefs, and visual perceptions in adults and to a higher degree for children. This directly encourages false confessions which are the “leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States.” Such false confessions result from deceptive police interrogation techniques including the Reid Technique which assumes guilt if the defendant cries during part of the interrogation or denies guilt repeatedly. Defendants of the Reid Technique claim it is an effective interrogation tactic that allows cases to be closed, however, coercion into a confession is not a solved case. 

Youth are particularly vulnerable to such deceptive tactics from law enforcement and there is legislation protecting juveniles in California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, and Utah from being lied to about evidence during an interrogation. Yet in the other 44 states, juveniles are not protected against the practice. The Delaware House Bill 219 cited the number of false confessions from juveniles as the leading factor for passing legislation in addition to the science behind brain development and manipulation. These changes are being introduced slowly with Colorado passing SB22-023 this year and similar legislation only dating back to California’s bill in 2020.

However, other vulnerable groups are not being considered with the addition of legislative change. Individuals with mental disabilities are at a higher risk for deceptive police tactics and they may not understand their ability to invoke their constitutional rights. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act allows for “reasonable modification” and may protect against such treatment during police interrogations, yet it is not enforced. States are not currently pursuing legal protections for those with mental disabilities during interrogations even as a “review of DNA exonerations involving false confessions revealed that forty-three per cent of false confessors suffered from mental disabilities.”

False confessions frequently lead to wrongful convictions as jurors often fail to “disregard false confessions because they believe that they personally would never confess to doing something they did not do” and are present in 25% of overturned wrongful convictions. There are over 360 wrongful convictions that have been overturned due to the introduction of DNA evidence in the United States, including famous cases such as The Exonerated 5, formerly known as The Central Park 5, and Jeffrey Deskovic. Both instances involve juvenile false confessions that led to between 6 and 16 years of incarceration for each individual.

Legislation should disallow these deceptive tactics in all interrogations, specifically disallowing misinformation about evidence and utilization of the Reid Technique. Additionally, by recording all interrogations there is a chance for increased accountability. Legislation should protect all that are subjected to police interrogation, not only identified vulnerable groups such as juveniles and individuals with mental disabilities. Every individual deserves respect during an interrogation and legislation that prevents officers from lying and manipulating memories is a place to start.

About the author

Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy

Read the Latest Print Edition

Recent Posts

Contact Us