89 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1393 (1998-1999)
Law and Police Practice: Restrictions in the Law of Interrogation and Confessions; Inbau, Fred E.

handle is hein.journals/jclc89 and id is 1407 raw text is: 0091-4169/99/8904-1393
THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY           Vol. 89, No. 4
Copyright 0  1957 by Northwesten University, School of Law  Pdnted in U.&A.
LAW AND POLICE PRACTICE:
RESTRICTIONS IN THE LAW OF
INTERROGATION AND CONFESSIONS*
FRED E. INBAU
When the police handcuff a suspected criminal, they, as well
as the arrested person himself, have a very definite understand-
ing as to where he is going. The purpose of the handcuffing is
also quite apparent. But when the courts handcuff the police-
and it is suggested that some of them do-it is doubtful if they
have a clear-cut notion as to where they are headed. It is also
questionable whether such courts have given adequate consid-
eration to other and perhaps better methods for coping with
the police problems about which they are concerned.
Artificial restrictions which the courts have imposed upon
law enforcement agencies and officers are the result of two basic
misconceptions regarding police misconduct.
The first misconception concerns the role to be played by
the courts with respect to the control or supervision of police
activities. The theory has been developed by some judges that
the judiciary is privileged to exert disciplinary control and su-
pervision over the police.  For this position constitutional
authority seems to be completely lacking. Courts have the
power, of course, to reject evidence illegally obtained, and par-
ticularly so where the trustworthiness or validity of the evidence
may be affected by the methods used to secure it. But that is a
distinctly different matter from the control or supervision of po-
lice activities themselves. Even within the federal system, there
seems to be no constitutional authority for the exercise of any
supervisory power by the Supreme Court over the activities of
federal officers, although there is no doubt about the Supreme
Court's supervisory power with respect to the lower federal
courts and the evidence that may be admitted in the trial of
federal cases. The fundamental concept of a threefold division
Originally printed in 52 Nw. U. L. REV. 77 (1957).

1393

Purchase Short-Term Access to HeinOnline

Prices starting as low as $29.95

Already a Subscriber?

What Is HeinOnline?

Learn More About the Law Journal Library (pdf)

We also offer annual subscriptions to universities, colleges, law firms, organizations, and other institutions. To request a quote please visit http://home.heinonline.org/subscriptions/request-a-quote/

Please note: the content in the Law Journal Library is constantly changing and some content has restrictions as required per the license. Therefore, please review the available content via the following link to ensure the material you wish to access is included in the database. For a complete list of content included in the Law Journal Library, please view http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/CSV.csv?index=journals&collection=journals