under the provision of Article 31 of the UCMJ. The rights warning is printed on DA Form 3881, Rights
Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate (see Figure 3-2). This form will be discussed further in Learning
Event 3 of this lesson.
c. Interrogations also require the presence of a witness. He will be a witness to the rights
warning procedures and to the interrogation.
d. As the PM operations officer, you must see there is consideration for the suspect's physical
needs. This means that the needs for food, water, rest, and personal hygiene are met. You must be able
to show the court that you provided these needs. Any sign of ignoring or withholding a suspect's request
can suggest that a statement was made under duress. However, providing for his physical needs does
not intend that an interrogation should be controlled by a suspect. Respond to requests that you feel are
appropriate and reasonable, so there is continuity and control in the interrogation. Thus, an occasional
request should be met. Continual interruptions by requests should be avoided.
e. There are two primary approaches that can be employed in an interrogation (just as you
would in an interview): the direct and indirect approaches.
f. 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.
g. 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. Then 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 agrees with previously known facts. You must refrain from coercion or leading questions that
suggest an expected answer.
h. 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
reasonably certain. You would use a direct approach to determine why the suspect did it. Stress the
overwhelming evidence against him. Suppose, however, three people had access to the tool room. All
three people are suspects. You would use an indirect approach by having each person tell his story.
Refer to the reason(s) 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.
i. Interrogation methods are based on the certainty of guilt of a suspect.
Interrogation
techniques are the way in which the questions are
MP2003
3-8
Previous Page
