Police

States Are Finally Starting To Rein in Deceptive Police Interrogation Techniques That Lead to False Confessions

Devastating examples of how coercive interrogations can lead to false confessions have led Illinois and Oregon to become the first states to limit when police can lie to suspects.

|

Last month, Illinois became the first state in the U.S. to ban police from lying to minors during interrogations. Oregon followed suit shortly after, and similar legislation has been introduced over the past several legislative sessions in New York.

The new laws and bills are the result of years of mounting evidence and DNA exonerations showing that minors and even adults can be pressured by police into falsely confessing to crimes they didn't commit.

Specifically, Illinois' law makes confessions by minors obtained through knowing deception about evidence or leniency inadmissible in court. As states begin to finally reckon with the phenomenon of false confessions, there are plenty of cases that show the disastrous consequences of using deception and other ploys to squeeze confessions out of people.

Take the case of Lawrence Montoya. In 2000, Denver police officers took Montoya, then 14 years old, and his mother into a small interrogation room to question him about the death of Emily Johnson, a 29-year-old schoolteacher who had been found fatally injured in her backyard in the early morning hours of New Year's Day.

Later that day, Montoya hopped in a car with his cousin and some other teens he didn't know to go joyriding. It was Johnson's stolen Lexus. Police later found the Lexus in a ditch, and eventually got an anonymous tip about the driver, who'd been running his mouth about stealing it. The driver gave up the names of all the other passengers, including Montoya's.

In the interrogation room, Montoya admitted to the detectives that he'd taken a ride in the car, but over the course of the next two hours, he denied ever being at the house 65 times. Eventually the detectives got Montoya's mother to leave, giving them the opportunity to lean on Montoya harder.

"I wasn't at that lady's house, bro," he insisted at one point, by then crying.

"Lorenzo, your footprint is in that blood," one detective responded. (Montoya now goes by Lawrence.)

"Who kicked her in the head first, Nick or J.R.?" the other detective cut in.

The officers told him there was a small mountain of evidence against him.

"I tell you Lorenzo, if you were there, you better give it up. We've got fingerprints, we've got blood prints, we've got saliva prints," one said. "We've got everything."

And: "You don't have a fuckin' clue what we can prove. Your ass is hanging out big time."

Montoya sobbed as the detectives continued to yell and pile questions on him. They were the kind of trick questions meant to get you in trouble, such as, "Was she dead when you left her?"

The boy only had one real escape hatch: keep his mouth shut. But after being worn down by hours of threats, suggestions of leniency, and lies about damning physical evidence, even innocent adults will start to rationalize confessing to a crime they didn't commit. Maybe the cops really will let you go home if you just give them what they want. Surely it will all get sorted out later, when the police realize they have the wrong person.

"Unfortunately what we know is that it rarely does get sorted out later," says Rebecca Brown, director of policy at the Innocence Project, a nonprofit that works to overturn wrongful convictions. "In fact, even in the face of exculpatory DNA evidence, fact-finders often will trump that evidence with confession evidence. In other words, they will believe the confession over the biological evidence that points elsewhere."

According to the Innocence Project, nearly 30 percent of exonerations involve false confessions, a number that would have been dismissed as absurd and unthinkable before the advent of DNA testing.

And so, after a long pause, Montoya said, "Was I outside the house? Yes."

One of the detectives leaned in and softened his voice, no longer yelling or threatening. "Lorenzo, you're this close to taking a big load off your shoulders," he said. "An unbelievable load off your shoulders. So just tell us about it. It's a simple thing."

Using the facts that the police officers had already revealed or prodded him toward—making sure to correct himself when detectives indicated he got basic facts about the murder wrong—the 14-year-old spun a flimsy story for them. And with that simple thing, Montoya talked his way into a life sentence.

There was no evidence against him, besides his confession and a jailhouse snitch who testified Montoya had told him about his role in the murder when they were in the same cell. (It was later revealed they were never housed together.) None of the other suspects placed him at the house, and all the forensic evidence cited during his interrogation either never existed or was later linked to the other suspects. Nevertheless, a jury convicted him of first-degree felony murder. Montoya spent 13 years behind bars, much of it in solitary confinement because he was a minor in an adult prison, before prosecutors cut a deal to release him on time served in exchange for his pleading guilty to being an accessory after the fact.

In 2016, Montoya filed a still-ongoing federal lawsuit, arguing that the city of Denver and several Denver police officers violated a panoply of his civil rights. His lawyers, David Fisher and Jane Fisher-Byrialsen, also represented one of the defendants in the infamous Central Park Five case.

Montoya's case is a textbook example of how coercive interrogation techniques, confirmation bias, and corner cutting can lead to a false confession and a wrongful conviction.

It's also a textbook example of how police in America have mostly conducted interrogations since the late 1960s. The Supreme Court ruled it was lawful for the police to lie during interrogations in 1969, in Frazier v. Cupp, a case where a man challenged his murder conviction on the grounds that police had claimed that the man's cousin had already confessed and implicated him, which was not true. The Court ruled that the officers' lies were, "while relevant, insufficient, in our view, to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible."

Threats, bluffs, and other ploys are all part of the police toolbox now in what's known as the Reid technique, the dominant method for conducting police interrogations for more than half a century. The Reid technique is guilt-presumptive, meaning the primary purpose is to get suspects to implicate themselves or confess.

Illinois and Oregon's new laws are part of a major shift in our understanding of how psychological manipulation can create false confessions. Brown says about 30 states now require interrogations to be recorded, and Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, an interrogation consulting firm that also trains police, announced it would stop using the Reid technique in 2017. Washington passed a law earlier this year requiring attorney consultations for minors before police can interrogate them.

"I hope the Illinois law will serve as a model for other states," Lawrence T. White, professor emeritus of psychology at Beloit College, wrote in an email to Reason. "In the United Kingdom, police cannot lie to suspects under any circumstances. It's been that way since the PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) Act was passed in 1984, 37 years ago."

John E. Reid and Associates, the firm that created and trains investigators in how to use the Reid technique, argues that false confessions mostly arise out of police not following its methods, which prohibit false promises of leniency, excessively long interrogations, and denials of physical necessities like bathroom breaks. It also urges extra care when interviewing minors and those with developmental disabilities.

But these new laws are an acknowledgment that minors are particularly vulnerable to being manipulated by coercive interrogation techniques.

"Juveniles and young adults confess more readily than older adults because young people are less mature, less likely to have prior experience with law enforcement, less likely to understand their Miranda rights, more likely to waive their Miranda rights, more likely to comply with the demands of authority figures, and less able to resist police pressure," White says. "They also are more likely to focus on immediate rewards and ignore the long-term consequences of their actions."

Brown says that about 30 percent of DNA exonerees were under the age of 18 when they falsely confessed, and if you raise that age to 25, it's 49 percent.

Both White and Brown say there's no reason not to extend similar protections to adults, who can still be swayed by police lies about evidence and other manipulations.

"The false confession cases that have been discovered surely represent the tip of an iceberg because the 375 DNA exoneration cases do not include cases in which a false confession was disproved before trial," White says. "They also do not include cases that result in guilty pleas (and cannot be appealed), cases in which DNA evidence was not available, cases (such as minor crimes) that do not receive post-conviction scrutiny, and juvenile proceedings that contain confidentiality provisions."

In July, California resident Roger Wayne Parker filed a civil rights lawsuit against Riverside County and its former district attorney after he was held in jail for nearly four years based on a murder confession that two prosecutors believed was obviously false and coerced. In fact, one of the line prosecutors wrote a memo outlining why the lack of any matching DNA or fingerprint evidence, and the 15-hour interrogation of Parker, who has an IQ below 80, led her to believe that Parker was innocent.

"I was concerned that the 'confession' was given so Roger could get out of jail because they had told him self-defense was legal and denial only landed him in jail," the prosecutor wrote.

Despite this, the D.A. forged ahead, removing both prosecutors from the case and holding Parker in jail for two and a half more years before finally dropping the case.

The other prosecutor is also suing, saying he was told by superiors to withhold DNA evidence pointing to Parker's innocence, and then forced out of his job after he defied them.

"You would get just as many confessions and convictions if you did it the right way, instead of lying to people, and you would remove one of the things that contributes to so many false confessions," says Parker's attorney, Gerald Singleton.

More states could soon join Illinois and Oregon. Brown said the Innocence Project has received inquiries from lawmakers in Connecticut, Delaware, and Washington state, along with the ongoing efforts in New York. New York's proposed legislation would extend beyond children to bar police from lying to adults during interrogations.

"We expect this to be a pretty hot issue in the upcoming sessions," Brown says.

It will also likely be contentious in New York, where police unions hold considerable political sway. Paul DiGiacomo, head of the New York Police Department (NYPD) detectives union, defended deceptive practices in a March interview with the New York Daily News.

"What people often label as trickery is a solid tactic…that detectives use to add evidence already collected," DiGiacomo said. "There's nobody who wants to see the right person behind bars more than the dedicated detectives working the case."

As for Montoya, the city of Denver has fought his lawsuit tooth and nail, claiming the officers involved are entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields public officials who violate someone's constitutional rights, if that right wasn't "clearly established" at the time of the violation. Federal courts have dismissed or limited much of Montoya's suit.

In March, though, a federal judge ruled that some of Montoya's claims could proceed. The judge noted that Montoya's so-called confession was riddled with contradictory statements and errors about significant facts of the murder, all of which were fed to him by his interrogators, who then wrote a "dishonest" affidavit that excluded exculpatory evidence and twisted his words.

"The thing to me about this case and cases like it is he's completely innocent," says Fisher. "He didn't do anything wrong. He spent his entire childhood in segregation in an adult prison, and rather than trying to make it right and change the way Denver interrogates children, they're trying to use legal technicalities to get out of the lawsuit while my client suffers and other people get wrongfully convicted. That's the thing that really bothers me. Unless there's pressure put on Denver, they're just going to keep doing what they're doing. There's not much incentive to do the right thing unless people know you're doing the wrong thing."

The Denver Police Department did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

NEXT: Free Society Dwindles as Permission Requirements Grow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So Denver is doing what Lorenzo should have done and keeping their goddamned mouth shut?

    Remember folks, if arrested, the only thing you should ever say is “I want my lawyer.”

    1. Unless, of course, you are of the wrong skin color, race, or ethnicity, or an illegal sub-human. In any of those cases, you should loudly and proudly confess to EVERYTHING that the crooked cops “suggest” that you should confess to! ‘Cause Lawn Odor conservaturds need to satisfy their punishment boners, and employ more cops and prison guards! Back the blue, dammit!!!

      1. Hey SQRLSY, I think this is a teachable moment.

        In what world did you think that comment added value to this thread? I mean, you strike me as someone who cares about these issues- maybe winning some hearts and minds. And this article brings up some interesting points that might raise some questions.

        Is it just kids who should be protected from lying cops? What about the mentally impaired? Is lying ever justified? There are some interesting boundaries to test from libertarian principles. (Could a confession on false evidence be some sort of fraud, or is holding a suspect until they are weary and confess anything meeting the definition of coercion?)

        But instead you reply to a comment with a complete strawman (nobody here is arguing that minorities ought to get different treatment) non sequitur (this is about lying cops not race). Why?

        The only thing I can think is that you want to trigger a response from people who default to supporting cops. Why is that? Do you think you are going to convince them to change their minds by starting off implying they are racists?

        Maybe you are trying to convince lurkers who might read an exchange? If so, do you really think starting off with this…parody of a screed is going to make people think you have something important to say?

        For all the bitching and moaning about Trumpaloos and Mean Girls that you do, posts like this make me think you crave it. Why else start with such an absurd statement, if not to stir the shit and bring in the flies?

        1. Thanks for your thoughts! I have found you to be a thoughtful commentor, generally.

          My point is tribalistic double standards, and “punishment boners”. Self-righteous “punishment boners” are a YUUUGE problem! My tribe’s violence GOOD; your tribe’s violence BAD! This is why Trump (when asked whether or not he could unequivocally condemn white-nationalistic violence, in the debates) immediately changed the topic to the violence of AntiFa. Whataboutism right on down the line; we see it here in the comments just about every day! Reason writes about abuses in the criminal justice system, and comments say “why aren’t you looking for justice for Ashli Babbitt instead”?

          Summary: “My tribe’s violence GOOD; your tribe’s violence BAD!”… More people need to be aware of this being a HUGE problem! It is programmed into our tribalistic minds, and we need to rise above it!

          I know of very few polite ways to wake people up to this… Do you?

          These two web pages address these problems in more detail, and more politely. First one is more relevant, and 2nd one a tad less so. http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/

          1. Hey, check it out! Comment right below mine shows a bit of what I’m talking about! Our fave “back the blue” cops have done something wrong? Let’s quickly change the topic to whataboutism about OTHER tribes, which I oppose! Local cops lie their asses off to a young Hispanic teenager, to falsely imprison him for YEARS? Change the topic to FBI abuses of the rights of unspecified favored tribes!

            Nardz
            August.16.2021 at 9:31 am

            But it’s totes cool if the FBI does it political enemies, eh CJ?

            1. When Nardz says that stuff he’s really saying “The FBI was mean to Trump and you liked it! That makes you a lefist! Nanny nanny boo boo!”

              1. You have good reason to feel insecure, sarcasmic.

                1. Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others.FDq This job is super easy and its earnings are great. Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily by just follow

                  The given website………. VISIT HERE

                  1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

                    See……………VISIT HERE

              2. You really need to make everything about Trump, don’t you?

      2. Unless, of course, you are of the wrong skin color, race, or ethnicity,

        That’s the kind of racist America you want to create, SQRLSY.

        or an illegal sub-human.

        Illegal aliens should be deported as soon as they have any contact with police.

        1. But why must you talk about your undying love for arbitrary and pointless state violence on a libertarian website? Aren’t there other places for that?

          1. You’re the totalitarian here. You’re a toxic queen too.

    2. Shirley only guilty people need a lawyer…

    3. Cops should NEVER be able to interrogate ANYONE who does not have their/ a lawyer to assist them. Cops are born liars and cowards and they lie, cheat, steal without any remorse. Given the FACT that cops do little if anything to reduce, or stop crimes, it is behing time for them to be defunded, and put in prison if needed.

  2. But it’s totes cool if the FBI does it political enemies, eh CJ?

    1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.FCt Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage……

      Just visit this website now……………. VISIT HERE

      1. Go somewhere else you pathetic shit selling shit.

    2. But see, that’s different to him because they’re terrorists for doubting Democrats. Not like the true freedom fighters he defends who only commit robbery, arson, assault and murder on the name of social justice so that’s all fine.

  3. Don’t worry C.J., the Doj is still using threats of decades in jail to get people to plead guilty and make public fealty statements in courts regarding jan 6th paraders.

  4. So it’s nearly 10 am Eastern time. Reason has posted 3 articles today and somehow none are about the international events over the weekend. Funny that.
    It’s like nothing of importance has happened. And gropey Joe is on top of world events.

      1. Nuh uh! Reason never covers important stuff!! They just don’t! Or if they do then they do it wrong! Those articles where Reason is critical of Democrats? They don’t exist! Those articles where Reason praises Republicans? They don’t exist either!

        Don’t believe your lying eyes! Only believe the narrative!

        1. “sarcasmic”? Based on your recent posts “ENBscockholster” would be a more appropriate handle for you.

          She is never going to fuck you, dude.

          1. You have it all wrong. His real goal is to dress up like ENB and entice Tony plow his ass.

        2. LOL, now two of the four Reason blog posts this morning are about Afghanistan.

          Yeah, I know, and when I do point out that Reason has said the things they are accused of not saying, I’m accused of being a troll.

      2. Shockingly, that article was posted after his comment.

        You can’t seem to turn off the gas light.

        1. Ever notice how the anti-oil-and-gas crowd leads the world in gaslighting?

    1. It’s not Reason’s job to suck Republican cock like yours is.

      1. No, sucking cock is YOUR job. And Sarc seems to want you in the worst way.

  5. To quote a cop (worked in IA) I knew
    “the only word you should ever say to a cop is lawyer”

    1. Um…I think you need a few more words to go with that, like “I want a”

  6. The state should have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt with no input from the accused, and it should be required to feel bad about doing so when it does.

  7. Montoya did nothing wrong except take a joyride in a stolen car. Have a feeling he would have stayed out of trouble if he had better friends.

  8. All taxpayer-supported employees should be under oath and subject to penalty of perjury whenever speaking in their official capacity.

    -jcr

    1. All taxpayer-supported employees should be under oath and subject to penalty of perjury whenever speaking.

      Fixed that for you.

  9. All questioning done by government, anytime or anywhere, of anyone, for any purpose, should be recorded, with consent of all, or it didn’t happen.

    1. That’s how it is in medicine – if a clinician gives a patient any instructions and it is not documented, then it never happened.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.