rapgood
Regular Member
It has been upheld in court that the police may lie when undercover and to some extent during official questioning to extract a confession. However, it is my understanding that in all other cases they are supposed to maintain integrity and not lie.
Actually, lying is not limited to undercover work.
There are a number of different interrogation tactics that may be psychologically coercive, rendering a confession involuntary. These include (1) threats of punishment and promises of leniency; (2) threats of adverse consequences to a suspect's friend or loved one; (3) misrepresentation of the evidence against a suspect; and (4) the so-called "false friend" tactic.
United States v. Rodgers, 186 F. Supp. 2d 971, 974 (E.D. Wis. 2002)
The Supreme Court has specifically declined to outlaw all trickery, or even to reach the question of whether an affirmative misrepresentation by law enforcement officials as to the scope and seriousness of an interrogation is sufficient to render a confession involuntary. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 107 S. Ct. 851, 858 n.8, 93 L. Ed. 2d 954 (1987)
The detective explained that police lie to suspects as part of a commonly used interview tactic. State v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753, 757 (Wash. 2001), reversed on other grounds, State v. Notaro, 161 Wn. App. 654, 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)
As such, I encourage all to review the video in gogo's posting above for best approach.