Interview and Interrogation
The terms interview and interrogation refer to two distinct components in the process involving the investigation of a crime. The interview is an informal and preliminary event. It usually happens as early as the first responders reaching the crime scene do. The interview is more relevant to uncovering the information pertaining to the crime itself. Witness identification is the primary function of police interviews. The information pertaining to the crime is usually extracted from witnesses during an interview. Interrogation is a byproduct of interviews. Interrogations use the information obtained from witnesses during interviews to determine suspects who were responsible for the crime itself. Although, they have similarities, they have inflexible differences (Taylor et al, 2013).
Interview
A police investigator preparing for an interview is only looking for information. The interviews are informal and do not hold any legal ramifications for the possible witness. The police interviewer has minimal preparation for the process. The arrangement of the interview appointment does not require warrants or probable cause. It is a simple fact-finding mission embedded in a criminal case. The police interviewer attempts to gather information hence, it is good to carry a questionnaire. The police interviewer should look for a place that has some degree of privacy. Studies indicate that despite the shortcomings in arranging for a segregated space for the interview, it is best not to have any chance for distractions. The purpose of the interview is to ascertain the facts in the case. A reliable witness should be in a position to narrate what happened during the commissioning of the crime, blocking out irrelevant information that might be confusing, and retrieve specific knowledge from the witness on how attentive the person was while witnessing the crime. This data is critical for the successful outcome of the interview (Taylor et al, 2013).
Interrogation
An interrogation is one of the final steps in closing the case. The purpose for an interrogation is to use the data procured during interviews to corroborate the facts with the suspect. This time of questioning is legally bound by a variety of safeguards. The Miranda Rights, the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent while being questioned, and conducting the interrogation in a room that puts the suspect at ease. Recent studies indicate that threatening behavior and manipulation do not yield the desired outcome always. However, the same studies indicate that direct questioning might yield improved results (Meissner et al, 2014).
The interrogator should first explore the legal ramifications that surround the case. There are certain procedures that have to be in place to ensure the legality of the interrogation. The interrogator should prepare a room with a single table and two chairs. The chairs should not face each other. Instead, they should be placed side by side. The suspect should be provided with the Miranda Rights. The interrogator must ensure that there is no aggressive behavior in the interrogation room. Suspects have provided testimony or confessed when they are not threatened (Taylor et al, 2013).
The interrogator should stick to the facts of the case that find sufficient backing in forensics and information obtained through interviews. The interrogator must try to videotape the entire interrogation especially when the suspect confesses to a crime. The interrogation should start with the confirmation of known information pertaining to the suspect to ascertain of the suspect is honest with the answers. The interrogator must record all the information given by the suspect. The interrogator must ensure that there are no distractions during the interrogation (Taylor et al, 2013).
Orozco v. Texas 394 U.S. 324 (1969)
The case of Orozco v. Texas was important to place safeguards for suspects interrogated by the police. The case proved that in the United States Criminal Justice system, there is no alternative to the letter of the law and the constitution.
The police in Dallas dropped by at the residence of Reyes Arias Orozco on the morning that followed the killing of a man who apparently used derogatory remarks at Orozco at a restaurant. Orozco was asleep when the police officers reached his residence. The police officers proceeded to question the suspect without allowing him an opportunity to call an attorney, or allow him the right against self-incrimination. The police officers refused to allow the suspect out of the room until he handed over the murder weapon. In the subsequent trial, Orozco was sentenced to serve a ten-year prison sentence. Orozco appealed his conviction in the Supreme Court of Texas in vain. The United States Supreme Court however, reversed the conviction after accepting Orozco’s argument that he was not allowed to avail his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Interrogative defects in the case
The police officers in this case were fueled by emotion than by the letter of the law. Moreover, their choice of venue to conduct the interrogation was regrettable. The aggressive behavior expressed towards the suspect yielded the murder weapon, however; the police officers failed to Mirandize the suspect. Furthermore, the refusal to allow the suspect out of the room despite holding no warrants to hold Orozco or to search his apartment, the police violated almost every single requirement for the proper preparation and execution of an interrogation (Justia Corporate Center, 2015).
References
Justia Corporate Center Staff (2015). Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969). Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/324/case.html
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., and Brandon, S (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459-486.
Taylor, R., Swanson, C., Territo, L., and Chamelin, N. (2013). Criminal Investigation (11th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Pp. 121-152.
