Most assume that people sworn to uphold the law would be held to a higher standard. These are the same people that make up the jury at a trial, and when they hear that the police got the suspect to confess to a crime, they'll also assume that the suspect is guilty. But what if the police used lies to obtain that confession? Are they legally allowed to lie to a suspect during an interrogation?
What does the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court has issued rulings on deceptive interrogation tactics, which law enforcement officers may use to extract information or confessions from suspects. In general, the actions of law enforcement officers during an interrogation must be fair and not violate a suspect's rights. For example, in the case of Frazier v. Cupp (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police officers to make false promises or threats to coerce a confession from a suspect. And in Illinois v. Perkins (1990), the Supreme Court considered whether or not officers could use undercover police officers to interrogate suspects in jail. The court ruled that officers could legally use this tactic if the suspect knew they were speaking to an officer and their Miranda rights were observed.However, deceptive tactics such as false evidence or misleading questions have often led to false confessions. And it's estimated that anywhere between 46,000 to 230,000 innocent people are currently incarcerated.Overall, it is vital for suspects to be aware of their rights during interrogations and remain mindful of any deceptive techniques being used against them.
