The Illinois Senate has passed legislation that would require police officers to record their questioning of suspects being held in homicide investigations. It embodies one of the most important reforms recommended by the governor’s Commission on Capital Punishment, on which we served.
Supported by many in law enforcement, the bill passed the Senate 58-0, and similar legislation emerged from the House with overwhelming support. Now that recording legislation appears certain to reach Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s desk, a last-ditch lobbying campaign to derail the legislation has been mounted. We urge the legislature and Gov. Blagojevich to resist these efforts.
Videotaping interrogations will benefit law enforcement, the courts, suspects and the public. It will increase the likelihood of convicting the guilty and sparing the innocent.
Recent studies have shown that confessions occur in about 40 percent of criminal cases, and are critical to conviction in about a quarter of the cases. By recording the compl interrogation process, police officers will be shielded from false claims that improper tactics were used to extract confessions or admissions. When the police report that a damaging statement was made by a person in custody, the suspect often maintains he was physically coerced, threatened with violence or tricked. A videotape will provide a real-time, indisputable account of what occurred, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, will greatly enhance the chances of convictions and deter unwarranted allegations against the officers involved. Minnesota and Alaska, where police have been taping interrogations for years, report an increase in defendants’ guilty pleas.
The courts also will benefit. To contest an alleged confession or admission, defendants must file a pretrial motion to suppress, denying the statement or alleging it was made under some form of duress. The trial judge holds a hearing at which the prosecution must prove it more likely than not that the statement was made, and made voluntarily. The judge is usually confronted with conflicting testimony from the police and the defendant. If the statement is held admissible, the defense may submit the same claim to the trial jury, which must wrestle with the disputed evidence. Recording station-house interrogations will put an end to most of these swearing matches, because the proof will be on the videotape. For obvious reasons, judges are proponents of this system. The Illinois Supreme Court’s Commission on Capital Cases stated, “routine electronic recording of all custodial interrogations and confessions would be a major improvement in criminal procedure and should be encouraged by the courts.” In mandating this system throughout the state, the Alaska Supreme Court observed that recording “protects the public’s interest in honest and effective law enforcement, and the individual interests of those police officers wrongfully accused of improper tactics … a recording will help trial and appellate courts to ascertain the truth.”
The use of recording devices will also protect the rights of all of us by deterring errant officers from using illegal tactics that pose a significant risk of extracting false confessions. In a number of cases studied by the capital punishment commission, defendants were convicted on the basis of purported confessions and were sentenced to be executed, but their innocence was later established. The commission noted, “Academic literature is also replete with descriptions of confessions that were obtained under circumstances that provide significant doubt as to accuracy.” Electronically recording interrogations was one of the principal reforms the commission recommended.
Many leaders in law-enforcement favor recording interrogations, including Cook County State’s Atty. Richard Devine and Lake County State’s Atty. Michael Waller. Former Illinois Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan has written that Illinois police agencies using videotape have found that it “provides the most accurate method of proving what was said …”
Nevertheless, some police organizations reflexively regard electronic recording as an enhancement of defendants’ rights that will impede legitimate police interrogations. As former federal prosecutors, we believe the guilty should be convicted, and we have no wish to erect unnecessary barriers to convictions. But our survey of police departments that use recordings disclosed uniformly enthusiastic reports.
For example, Amy Klobuchar, while prosecutor for Hennepin County, Minn., which includes Minneapolis and 35surrounding suburbs, wrote, “Police and prosecutors have little to fear from a requirement to videotape all interrogations. Recording not only protects the innocent, it helps convict the guilty and sustain the public’s faith in our criminal justice system.” Recording in major felony cases is done by police departments across the country, including San Diego; Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs and Ft. Collins, Colo.; many departments in Connecticut; Broward County and Coral Springs, Fla; and DuPage, Kankakee and Peoria Counties in Illinois. A National Institute of Justice report found that “allegations of misconduct against police officers dropped, and officers were able to adjust their interrogation process to accommodate the presence of video. Few major problems were encountered.”
Experience has established that recording suspects’ statements will not impede valid confessions. This practice will provide an easily accessible tool to rebut unwarranted denials and claims of coercion, and advance the worthy goal of deterring improper interrogation practices. This is a simple, inexpensive, important reform whose time has come.
