About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

20 Int'l J. Police Sci. & Mgmt. 3 (2018)

handle is hein.journals/injposcim20 and id is 1 raw text is: Police Science Article & Management Police recording of custodial interrogations: A state-by-state legal inquiry International journal of Police Science & Management 2018, Vol. 20(I) 3-18 © The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uld/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1461355717750172 journals.sagepub.com/home/psm OSAGE Brandon L Bang Department of Criminal justice, West Texas A&M University, USA Duane Stanton Department of Criminal justice and Criminology, Washington State University, USA Craig Hemmens Department of Criminal justice and Criminology, Washington State Mary K Stohr Department of Criminal justice and Criminology, Washington State University, USA University, USA Abstract The Supreme Court of the United States recognized in its seminal case Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) that police used overly coercive techniques during custodial interrogations to obtain confessions. Yet, post Miranda, police officers still utilize legal coercive and deceptive techniques during custodial interrogations. Unfortunately, some of these techniques have proven to be so coercive that they lead to false confessions and innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit. Some states have taken measures to protect the accused during custodial interrogations and require the police to record custodial interrogations under certain conditions. The policies and procedures that mandate interrogation recording vary in scope and by state. This article sheds light on the different statutes and policies implemented at the state level that regulate custodial interrogation recording. Keywords Police, interrogation, confession, recording, statute Submitted II Jul 2017, accepted 28 Nov 2017 Introduction The burden of proof required to convict a defendant in crim- inal court is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest level of proof used in the United States and means the jury should vote to convict only if they have achieved near certainty of the defendant's guilt (Jackson v Virginia, 1979: 315). However, only a small portion of convictions are reached via trials in the United States. In approximately 95% of criminal cases the defendant pleads guilty (Covey, 2008). When a defendant pleads guilty, the judge must determine if the plea is given knowingly, voluntarily, and is based on ascertainable facts (Dressler and Michaels, 2006). When someone is convicted, the state may take his or her liberty away and label the person a criminal. Considering such serious consequences, finding a person guilty or accepting a guilty plea is a serious matter and it is important that the court gets it right. Despite the high burden of proof, the large number of guilty pleas, and the constitutional safe- guards in place, court rulings are sometimes flawed. With the advent of DNA testing we know for certain that courts do not always get it right. The number of Corresponding author: Craig Hemmens, Department of Criminal justice and Criminology, P.O. Box 644872, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA. Email: craig.hemmens@wsu.edu

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most