Breaking the Cycle: Why Law Enforcement Must Abandon False Evidence Tactics
. Mark A. Anderson
Nationally recognized interviewing trainer and speaker bringing scientifically validated Interview Training that maximizes the quantity and quality of truthful information obtained.
It is an interesting phenomenon as you age that you realize some of the things you learned and have practiced for years have very little basis in fact. They aren’t supported in scientific literature or research.? They are in fact based on historical folklore that worked at least once. Not only that, but the evidence-based research has existed for 20 plus years, and I continued to do it wrong. Why is that? I keep hearing that old bureaucratic mantra screaming in my ears, “that’s the way we have always done it.”? All I can say is stop it, stop it now. I have!
Where has this occurred? It is across the board in the interviewing arena really.? Looking for body language or non-verbal cues associated with deception is a huge one. But today we are talking about the concept of lying in the interview and specifically misrepresenting evidence to our interviewee in hopes of securing a confession. Is that a good idea?? Where did you first learn to do it? Why do you do it? Are you really considering the big picture?
A couple of foundational thoughts here.? What is our organizational mission? Are we in that interview to get the greatest quantity and quality of truthful information? If the number one reason interviewees tell us the truth is the confidence and credibility of the interviewer, what does misrepresentation and lying to the interviewee get us?
Investigative interviewing is a cornerstone of criminal justice, a process designed to elicit accurate and reliable information from witnesses, victims, and suspects. 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. Despite longstanding debates, research overwhelmingly suggests that using false evidence tactics undermines investigative effectiveness, damages credibility, and increases the likelihood of wrongful convictions.
What is False Evidence?
False evidence in investigative interviewing refers to any deceptive tactic where law enforcement misrepresents, fabricates, or exaggerates evidence to elicit a confession or obtain information. This can take multiple forms:
These techniques, along with so many others, are often justified by law enforcement under the belief that they encourage guilty suspects to confess. However, extensive psychological research has shown that such tactics can backfire, leading to false confessions and undermining the entire justice process.
The Psychological Impact of False Evidence
Decades of research in psychology and criminology demonstrate that introducing false evidence during interrogations increases the risk of false confessions. A seminal study by Kassin and Kiechel (1996) showed that when participants were falsely accused of pressing a key that supposedly caused a computer crash, many internalized guilt and confessed—even when they had not done anything wrong. Similar findings have been replicated in real-world settings, particularly involving vulnerable populations such as juveniles and individuals with cognitive impairments (Redlich & Meissner, 2009; Gudjonsson, 2003).
Case Studies of False Confessions
The negative consequences of false evidence tactics are well-documented in wrongful conviction cases. The Central Park Five, a group of teenagers wrongfully convicted in the 1989 assault of a jogger in New York City, provides a striking example. During their interrogations, police falsely claimed that their co-suspects had confessed, leading to false admissions of guilt. Years later, DNA evidence exonerated them, highlighting the devastating impact of deceptive interrogation methods (Drizin & Leo, 2004).
Similarly, the case of Marty Tankleff demonstrates how false evidence can manipulate a suspect's perception of reality. Tankleff, a teenager at the time, was told by police that his father had regained consciousness before dying and named him as the attacker. This false claim led him to doubt his own memory and confess to a crime he did not commit. His conviction was later overturned after new evidence surfaced (Leo & Davis, 2010). This being a case I examined from the perspective of trauma informed interviewing and what was Tankleff experiencing at the time of that interview.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The use of false evidence in interrogations has long been debated within legal and ethical circles. While courts in the United States have generally permitted some degree of deception in interrogations (Frazier v. Cupp, 1969), legal scholars and human rights advocates argue that these tactics undermine the principles of due process and fairness.
Despite the lack of prohibition in many areas there have been successful challenges of the practice based on coercion and due process and the laws prohibiting that.? On the federal level under the 14th Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule.
Efforts to Prohibit False Evidence Tactics
Several legal and legislative efforts have sought to curb the use of false evidence in interrogations:
The Long-Term Consequences of False Evidence
Beyond wrongful convictions, false evidence tactics erode public trust in law enforcement and the judicial system. When individuals perceive police as manipulative or deceptive, community cooperation diminishes, making it harder for investigators to obtain reliable information in future cases. Additionally, officers who rely on deceptive tactics risk damaging their own credibility in court, as defense attorneys can expose their methods and cast doubt on legitimate evidence. Remember integrity is a long process to obtain and can be taken so quickly.
Alternatives to False Evidence Tactics
Rather than resorting to deception, law enforcement agencies should adopt evidence-based interviewing techniques that prioritize truth-seeking and reliability. These methods have been widely endorsed as effective and ethical alternatives. They often emphasize rapport-building, open-ended questioning, and active listening, leading to more accurate information and reducing the likelihood of false confessions (Meissner et al., 2012).
The Need for Reform
The research is clear—false evidence tactics in investigative interviewing do significantly more harm than good. From increasing false confessions to damaging credibility and public trust, these methods undermine the very goals of criminal investigations. As legal reforms continue to emerge, it is imperative for law enforcement to adopt ethical, evidence-based approaches that enhance both the integrity and effectiveness of the justice system.
Think about it and consider the ramifications. From the one interview standpoint, if you lie and get caught in it, how foolhardy it is to expect the interviewee to tell you the truth when you are lying just like him.? From the larger perspective, do you think your conduct is not related on to other people.? What do you want your legacy to be?
Evidence-based practices must be at the center of our interviewing approach. If you aren’t employing them, ask yourself what proof do you have that your legacy techniques are producing the desired outcome? Is your approach maximizing the quality and quantity of truthful information obtained? The changes that are needed are fundamental and can be easily accomplished. Training is essential, it is what moved me beyond my blind spots. I can provide it or recommend providers teaching evidence-based techniques.? Do your research, find the right provider, maximize your training dollar investment. Don’t get the same old legacy-based methods that have no empirical evidence supporting them.
Anderson Investigative Associates is positioned to custom-tailor training to your specific needs.? If you have any questions or would like to discuss the issue of false evidence, any evidence-based techniques, or any training need, please reach out.? Additional issues pertaining to interviewing, auditing, and investigations can be found in other blogs and videos that I have produced and are contained in most blocks of instruction that our company presents.
If you have additional questions, comments, or have an interview topic you would like me to address, give me a shout.? In the meantime, be well, stay safe out there, and have the integrity and credibility to conduct yourself ethically. This mindset will improve your interviewing and communication skills, and not just in interviews but throughout your life. If you need help getting ready, I know who could help.
References
Mark A. Anderson
Director of Training and Development
Anderson Investigative Associates, llc
114 Loucks Avenue
Scottdale, PA 15683
tel:912-571-6686
Workshop Leader | Keynote | Science-Based Interview & Interrogation | Conflict Whisperer & Information Gatherer Extraordinaire
5 天前Great article. Mark A. Anderson. False evidence ploys (FEP) demonstrate a poor overall strategy, that big picture. Get caught, no more information. Forget the tricks; learn the trade.
Safety and Security Principal helping others secure what is valuable to them.
6 天前Mark A. Anderson great article. You also tend to lose any chance of an admission should the suspect realize you're lying. I've used pre-text interviews when lacking a clear connection, as this allows the suspect to separate themselves from the act if they are guilty. Open ended questions work very well allowing the individual the opportunity to talk, which often leads someone to divulge more than they wanted. Additionally, silence is a great tool when used appropriately. All those interview skills I learned after conducting over a thousand interviews in support of Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism operations. The latter carrying a very heavy price if inaccurate information is provided and not vetted, leading to a targeting event when detention is not the objective.