It has been interesting to read the reports on videotaping of criminal suspect interrogations in the LJW over the past two years. Indeed, there appears to have been some evolution in the police department’s position since it was reported that our local police department is not convinced the videotaping of suspects’ interviews in their entirety is “worth the effort” (Journal-World, Sept. 9, 2004.) In that article, the police spokesperson stated about videotaped interviews with suspects, “We don’t see that it’s a need, other than it’s a concern that’s been raised numerous times.”

In another case reported in the Journal-World on Oct. 8, 2005, a local district court judge was quoted stating, “The beauty of reviewing an audio or videotaped statement is the fact that the court can look at all of this in context.” Finally, in an article published in the Journal-World on Nov. 16, 2006, it was reported that a videotaped interrogation was shown to a jury which demonstrated contradictions in the defendant’s statements to the police investigators. Thus, it appears that the positive impact that the videotaping of suspect interviews has had on the triers of fact, or the legal decision-makers, has begun to be slowly assimilated into the Lawrence Police Department’s policy.

The Lawrence Police Department’s original position on videotaping suspect interviews dating back to September 2004 is not surprising. In fact, Inbau, Reed, Buckley, and Jayne (2001) who wrote Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, the bible for training U.S. police departments in interrogation methods, do not advocate the recording of suspect interviews in their entirety.

Nonetheless, they advocate the videotaping of selected portions of the interviews, such as the confession, frequently after many hours of interrogation, which, according to the article, was at the time the current practice of the Lawrence Police Department “in some major cases.” These authors’ anti-videotape stance is based upon unsubstantiated assumptions that the videotaping of suspect interviews created a number of pragmatic difficulties and would result in suspects being less willing to make confessions.

The foregoing beliefs do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Studies completed in other countries and in some U.S. jurisdictions where suspect interviews are recorded in their entirety have found that after a brief adjustment period, the police departments easily overcame the practical problems of learning the technology, writing policy, and they have embraced the practice. An even more pertinent finding was that videotaping suspect interviews in their entirety had no impact on suspects making confessions and self-incriminating statements.

Furthermore, it was found that the videotapes played an important role in providing the courts with data to determine the validity of the confessions. Moreover, the research demonstrated other benefits to the police departments such as proving confessions were voluntary, and fostering improvements in police department training and interrogation methods.

A cynic might suspect some U.S. police departments do not fully videotape suspect interviews because they are leery of the public scrutiny of cases and they believe the mere existence of videotaped recordings offers defense attorneys valuable support for contesting their clients’ confessions. Videotaping all suspect interviews, including those of minors, is in the best interests of the police departments, the suspects, and the concept of justice.

Minimally, videotaping suspect interviews in their entirety functions to protect the police departments from false allegations, they can provide support for evidence obtained during the interviews, and recordings can demonstrate that the suspects were not coerced or maltreated and their rights were observed. Videotaping all suspect interviews in their entirety is not a magical cure for the criminal justice system. However, adopting such a policy for our community is a positive step for a progressive Lawrence in the 21st century.

– John V. Spiridigliozzi is a Lawrence psychologist whose practice in forensic psychology comprises criminal law, family law, personal injury law and some probate matters, as well as consultations with the courts and attorneys.