[Sharing Lights]

Page 7
6 Programs, National Institute of Justice. (Geller, Videotaping Interrogations and Confessions, DOJ HV 7635 .U548 G318 (1993)). It found that videotaping was used to some extent by one third of all police departments in jurisdictions with populations over 50,000. We have heard of no jurisdiction discontinuing recording of interrogations, and police departments continue to adopt the practice. For example, at the end of January 2003, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department announced its plan to videotape all homicide interrogations from start to finish. Interestingly, this department adopted the practice after studying other police agencies and concluding that “the advantages of taping far outweighed any perceived disadvantages.”10According to the Geller study, those jurisdictions that did videotape overwhelmingly found that videotaping improved the quality of police interrogations -- nearly 50% reported that it helped alot and over 35% that it helped somewhat. The benefits included better preparation work by detectives, avoidance of distractions (typewriters, notebooks or extra personnel) at the interrogation, easy monitoring of interrogations by supervisors through closed-circuit television to assess performance, use of taped interrogations for training, and use of taped confessions to elicit a confession from suspected accomplices. In addition, as a result of videotaping, there were fewer allegations by defense attorneys of coercion or intimidation. Prosecutors likewise “were in virtually unanimous agreement” that videotaping helped themassess the State’s case and prepare for trial, and also credited videotapes for providing details otherwise unavailable, including the suspect’s and officer’s physical condition and demeanor. While Minnesota requires electronic recording, but not necessarily videotaping, last year, Hennepin County 9See Welsh White, False Confessions in Criminal Cases, (ABA) CRIMINAL JUSTICE (Winter 2003) at 5. 10Miami Herald, Feb. 1, 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
7 Attorney Amy Klobuchar wrote, “At the time of the decision to require recording in Minnesota, most police and prosecutors in the state feared the new rule would make their jobs harder and undermine the cause of justice. But during the past eight years it has become clear that videotaped interrogations have strengthened the ability of police and prosecutors to secure convictions against the guilty. At the same time, they have helped protect the rights of suspects by ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice process.”11The Geller study quoted defense attorneys as more opposed to videotaping, because it gave the prosecutor a strategic edge, but defenders still found the tapes useful for “client control” and evaluating the case with the client, and occasionally useful in conveying non-verbal information. The Geller study considered all videotaping, with one section discussing the distinction between taping full interrogations as opposed to “recaps.” It reported that full interviews averaged two to four hours, while recap interviews averaged 15 to 45 minutes. The study reported some extra costs in videotaping full interrogations because of the increased use of tape and extra transcription costs. The discussion of the favorable comments about videotaping by prosecutors and police officers did not distinguish between those who record only recaps and those who record complete interviews. In sum, the study found that 97% of departments that have ever videotaped suspects’ statements find the videotaping to be useful. The Trend Toward Requiring Recording of Interrogations. Recording interviews has been required by judicial opinion in Alaska since 198512and 11“Eye on Interrogations: How Videotaping Serves the Cause of Justice,” Washington Post, June 10, 2002. Hennepin County includes Minneapolis and 44 suburban communities.12Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (1985).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
8 Minnesota since 1994.13The practice has been requested via suppression motion in numerous other jurisdictions, including New York State.14State courts have responded that although recording complete interrogations would be a good idea, it was not required by due process and should be addressed by the legislature. Two United States’ jurisdictions, the District ofColumbia and Illinois, have recently enacted statutes requiring recording of full interrogations in certain crimes.15There are at least five recent legislative proposals in the United States, in New York City, Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon and Missouri.16The District of Columbia statute17requires the Chief of Police to adopt a General Order requiring the police to “electronically record, in their entirety, and to the greatest extent feasible, interrogations of persons suspected of committing a dangerous crime or a crime of violence” if the interrogation is conducted in interview rooms that have recording equipment. Matters to be considered in the Order include when the suspect should be advised of the recording, what questioning on lesser crimes should be recorded, and how to ensure recording of interrogations in locations other than equipped interview rooms. The statute provides for maintaining relevant statistics and for reports, including an evaluation of the benefits of videotaping. 13State v. Scales, 518 N.W. 2d 587 (1994).14People v. Owens, 185 Misc. 2d 661 (Monroe Cty. 2000).15These statutes, like the decisions in Alaska and Minnesota do not specifically require videotaping. 16New York City Council Int. No. 270; Conn. Raised Bill No. 539, LCO No. 2163 (2002); Missouri Senate Bill 231, 92ndGeneral Assembly (2003); Oregon House Bill 2079 (2003). Maryland House Bill 407 (2002) was withdrawn.17D.C. Code §5-133.20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
9 The Illinois statute18provides that, in homicide cases, statements made as a result of custodial interrogation in a police station or place of detention are presumptively inadmissible if not electronically recorded. This presumption can be overcome by proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statement was voluntary and reliable based on the totality ofthe circumstances. In addition, the State can use the statement after proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following exceptions: (i) the statement was made in open court, before a grand jury, or at a preliminary hearing; (ii) the statement was not recorded because it was not feasible to do so; (iii) the statement was voluntary and bears on the credibility ofthedefendantasawitness;(iv) the statement was spontaneous and not in response to a question; (v) the statement was made after routine questioning for processing; (vi) the suspect requested that there be no recording, if the request is recorded; (vii) the statement was made out of state; (viii) the statement was made when the interrogator was unaware that a death had in fact occurred; (ix) multiple suspects were questioned, and all available recording equipment was beingutilized for other suspects; or (ix) the statement was otherwise admissible under law. These two enacted statutes are cautious starts that may serve as a model for jurisdictions concerned that requiring recording in all cases will jeopardize prosecutions of the guilty or be 18Ill. Public Act 93-0517.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 11
10 unduly burdensome. The Connecticut proposed bill provided that custodial interrogations at a police station, courthouse, correctional facility, community correctional center or detention facility shall be electronically recorded in their entirety when feasible, and directed the court to instruct the jury that it may consider any failure to record the interview in determining the reliability of a confession.