The Truth Is Enough: Why False Evidence in Interviews Undermines Justice
The Risks, Realities, and Consequences of Deceptive Interrogation Tactics: Why Modern Policing Must Prioritize Truth Over Deception
The truth is often bad enough. This article was inspired by Mark A. Anderson and his post on LinkedIn: Breaking the Cycle: Why Law Enforcement Must Abandon False Evidence Tactics. Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for your timely piece and thank you, Sgt. Jon Rappa, for your wisdom and your responsiveness.
Early on
There was a tremendous emphasis on ethics and honesty in police academy. This wasn’t check-the-box training. Nearly every instructor and academy staff member would let us know that we were called to be instilled with honesty and be above reproach in every instance.
Perhaps I had heard about this in police academy, but I wasn’t fully aware of lying to suspects to elicit confessions until I was transferred from Patrol Division to Criminal Investigations Division in 2001. Like Michael Connelly’s fictional detective Harry Bosch, many cubicles of homicide detectives were decorated with quotes, including this paraphrase, ‘Yes your honor, I did use deception and misdirection techniques during the interview of my suspect but nothing that would cause an innocent person to confess to a crime that they didn’t commit.’
Over 26 years, with eight years in mid-career and about 18 months at the conclusion of my career in the Homicide Unit, nearly a decade, I did not witness a single law enforcement interview involving intentional deception that resulted in a solved case that otherwise would have gone unsolved. Not one where lying would have helped.
That said, I did see cases ‘possibly’ resolved more quickly than they would have, basically from one lie countering another lie, but in no instance was deception conclusively more effective ultimately to getting to the truth.
I also saw detectives who used it as a first resort rather than a last resort. Deception in an interview, used too early is a premature show of your poker hand in a process, degrading trust.
Even in a large agency, with full squads of detectives, only a tiny portion of them have the capacity to use techniques of deception effectively to garner a viable statement or confession of guilt that actually solves a case. They also are the ones most likely to use deception as a last resort. Another obvious strike against the deception option is, once untethered, you don’t know what you are going to get and where it is going to take you.
While you are going to get a bunch of backslaps in the breakroom and at choir practice, however when the depositions subpoenas come, where the detective is compelled to disclose the use of deception, the detective is responsible for thorough follow up on all plausible tales told by the suspect.
Even though it has historically been permitted in some cases the best reasons for detectives to avoid using deception are:
1. The Risk of False Confessions – Deception has lead to false confessions, particularly among juveniles, individuals with cognitive impairments, or those under psychological distress. When a detective lies about evidence or falsely claims a co-defendant has confessed, a suspect is often pressured to admit to something they didn’t do, possibly leading to wrongful convictions.
2. Credibility and Trust Issues– Once a detective is caught in a lie, it undermines their credibility with the court. Defense attorneys can exploit deceptive tactics to challenge the integrity of the entire investigation, weakening the prosecution’s case. Additionally, if officers habitually use deception, it erodes public trust in law enforcement in the court system and the community.
3. Ethical and Legal Concerns – Many agencies and courts are shifting away from deceptive tactics due to ethical concerns and legal scrutiny. Some states have even passed laws restricting or banning deception in interrogations, particularly for juveniles. Best practices in modern investigative interviewing emphasize rapport-building, active listening, and truth-seeking rather than manipulation.
Our growing disabled community
False evidence techniques are especially pronounced among juveniles and individuals with cognitive impairments, who are more susceptible to suggestion, coercion, and psychological manipulation.
It is sad to say, the truth is that today we are dealing with a great increase of developmentally disabled youth and adults than were decades ago. It’s a sad fact, that there are so many more youth on the autism spectrum than before and so many parents declaring their brilliant children as neurodivergent via Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
While people with intellectual disabilities or mental health disorders struggle to understand the legal implications of their statements and may falsely confess simply to escape an overwhelming situation it is a fact, many of them wouldn’t contemplate committing a deliberate crime.
Extracting truth
Sgt. Jon Rappa has forgotten more than I will ever know about interviews and extracting the truth. What he knows and shares in his book and in his classes are the risks and realities of bringing corruptible information into the room. Rappa says:
“In my journey to become a better student of interviewing, I recall reading about an incident at a suppression hearing that served as a poignant example of the risks associated with this tactic. While the admission was ultimately upheld as legal, the challenge posed by the defense underscores the fragility of relying on deception. Even when judicial rulings favor law enforcement, the mere revelation of deception can sow doubt in the minds of jurors, potentially swaying the outcome of trials.”
False evidence has a checkered past and well deserved when it comes to police investigations. Rappa continues, “but what happens when false evidence—a claim that does not exist or is manipulated—is introduced into the equation? The ramifications can be profound, affecting everything from case integrity to public trust in law enforcement.”
Virtue, not perfection
In investigative interviewing and law enforcement, the goal should be virtue, not perfection. Perfection is an impossible standard—every case, every interview, and every decision will have complexities, challenges, and uncertainties. However, pursuing virtue means consistently striving to act with integrity, fairness, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. This approach rejects deceptive tactics like false evidence, not only because they are ineffective and legally questionable, but because they compromise the ethical foundation of law enforcement.
Officers who prioritize virtue over shortcuts recognize that their role is not just about securing confessions but about ensuring justice through reliable, evidence-based methods. Sgt. Rappa has more to say about deceptive interviewing:
“In light of these considerations, it’s refreshing to hear that some investigators have shifted their approach away from deceptive practices. In my interview and interrogation course, I emphasize the strategic use of real evidence during interrogations. Rather than relying on deception, the practice of challenging suspects based on discrepancies between their statements and the actual evidence is a more effective approach. This strategy not only aligns with ethical standards but also enhances the effectiveness of investigations. The bottom line; STOP LYING TO YOUR INTERVIEWEE.”
When virtue guides an officer’s actions, it builds credibility, strengthens public trust, and contributes to a justice system that is both ethical and effective. When some of the criminals know that cops will lie when the end justifies the means, word will spread in that fashion too. When they know they won’t, all the better.
Please keep all our peace officers in your prayers. Today we mourn the loss of four officers murdered in the line of duty in the last few days. There are more inherently dangerous occupations out there, but no other job has the risk of murder while doing the right things like our American Peace Officers.
Roland Clee served a major Florida police department as a Community Service Officer for more than 26 years. His career included uniformed patrol, training, media relations, intelligence, criminal investigations, and chief’s staff. He writes the American Peace Officer newsletter, speaks at public safety, recruiting and leadership conferences and helps local governments and public safety agencies through his business, CommandStaffConsulting.com.
References
‘Virtue, Not Perfection” is a wonderful standard for all of us. Virtue was a core belief of our founding generation, and would serve us well now. Thanks for bringing your unique perspective.