Whether or not the interrogation can continue depends on how the waiver certificate
An interrogation may continue if the suspect or accused person
signs the waiver, or if he orally waives his rights but refuses to sign the waiver.
If the suspect or accused is not willing to talk and signs the nonwaiver section,
stop the interview or wait for a lawyer, depending on circumstances. Remember that
a suspect not in custody can leave at any time and will probably do so if he does
not want to cooperate.
Consider and Provide for a Suspect's Physical Needs.
Consideration for the
suspect's physical needs means that you must ensure that needs for food, water,
provided for these needs. Any sign of ignoring or withholding a suspect's request
can suggest that a statement was made under duress.
However, providing for the
suspect's physical needs does not intend that an interrogation should be controlled
by a suspect.
You should respond to requests that you feel are appropriate and
reasonable so that you preserve the continuity and control of the interrogation.
Thus, an occasional request should be met; continual interruptions by requests
should be avoided.
Determine Appropriate Interrogation Approach. There are two primary approaches you
can employ in an interrogation (just as you would in an interview): the direct and
If the guilt of the suspect is reasonably certain, based on overwhelming evidence
and/or previous testimony, then the direct approach is more appropriate. Here you
attempt to determine why the suspect committed the offense rather than if he did.
Do this by stressing the evidence and testimony against the suspect.
Use the indirect approach when guilt is doubtful or uncertain.
Have the suspect
give a detailed account. You can compare known facts to his account. You can then
successfully confront the suspect with his own discrepancies and distortions.
Consistently and persistently presenting a suspect with evidence and testimony can
cause him or her to correct the discrepancies.
The suspect will thereby make a
statement that is in accordance with previously known facts. You must refrain from
coercion or leading questions that suggest an expected answer.
Here is an example that shows when to use the two approaches. Suppose tools were
stolen out of a tool room. Only one person had access to the room at that time.
The guilt of that person is therefore reasonably certain. You would use a direct
approach to determine why the suspect did it.
Stress the overwhelming evidence
Suppose, however, three people had access to the tool room.
three people are suspects.
You would use an indirect approach by having each
person tell his story. Refer to the reasons why they are suspect. Evaluate their
story while they are talking in order to detect discrepancies with known facts
(location, amount of tools, or time period).
Any hint of inconsistency or
discrepancy is your key to further questioning.