Essentials of interview and interrogation

Many of my articles focus on the minutiae of interview and interrogation. I realize that a lot of my readers are first time interviewers and may need more immediate guidance. What follows is a list of what I consider the essentials of interview and interrogation. Do these things first. Don’t try to get fancy until you have the basics covered. I’ll periodically update this list.

Also, here is a Google Doc with a lot of this information in a printable format.

Essentials of interview and interrogation. 

Approach: 

Pleasant neutrality. Let their first impression be positive as you enter and shake their hands. 

Do not express judgment. 

Talk less; have them talk more. 

Take notes for speed control. 

The truth is what you want; don’t insist on a confession. 

Sometimes them making themselves look like the kind of person that would do it is as good as a confession. 

The interviewee should provide you information while you provide them as little as possible. If you overshare information, it could make a confession suspect; an attorney may argue that they just repeated what you told them. Independent corroboration is the gold standard. 

There is no universal indicator of deception. Your case facts are your best guide to the truth. 

At first, you will need your entire focus to know what you are asking and truly hear what they are saying. This is the core of interviewing and interrogation. If you are struggling on either of these, ignore body language, eye movements, or any other sort of nonverbal clues entirely. Focusing on body language without being comfortable asking and listening to questions is like being an out of shape cyclist and focusing on getting better equipment (percentage boosting) instead of increasing fitness (core need). Just like the cyclist’s equipment, nonverbals are percentage boosters; don’t worry about percentage boosters until the core needs are met.  

YOU WILL NOT: make threats, make promises (unless you are authorized to do so by your ADA), or do anything to shock the conscience. 

Some people are innocent.

Preparation: 

If possible, prepare for your interview. Know your case facts. Have a list of details that you want to corroborate. Have this list in the room with you. Do not simply read from the list. Ask open questions as much as possible. If lost, refer to the list to prompt you. 

If you have evidence, plan for how to present it. Do not simply bring out the evidence and ask them about it. Use the Strategic Use of Evidence to get the most out of it. 

In preparation for themes, think about your crime, and ask yourself, “what is the most innocent way this could have happened?” During your interview, provide the suspect opportunities to introduce those exonerating details. Example: Most innocent explanation is “You got the wrong guy.” Provide opportunities for him to provide an alibi or implicate somebody else. Examine each of these closely. Ask for proof. These questions should be part of your question list going in. Guilty suspects have a block of some sort preventing them from telling the truth. Addressing that block is the best source of themes. Otherwise, build a theme on the most innocent explanation being careful to morally excuse them without criminally excusing them. 

Eat first or be prepared to work hungry if it goes long. Don’t drink too much water or coffee. 

Have a partner watch your interview. If you don’t work somewhere with live monitoring, go in with two detectives. 

If you do a two detective interview, one detective is lead and the other is a backup. The backup detective should shut up until the lead detective prompts them.

Make sure your room is set up how you want it. At a minimum, make sure there are no desks or tables between you. Have your chairs about 6 feet apart. 

Execution / Interview:

Greet the interviewee, and immediately provide them a bottle of water. This starts the process of reciprocity, which can have outsized benefits for you later.

Thank them for coming in. Introduce yourself. The introduction is dealer’s choice on wording but should establish the following: you are experienced, you will be fair, (if non-custodial) that you haven’t made any final decisions on the case, and that you are there to listen. 

Cover custodial issues. If non-custodial, make sure they know that they are free to leave at any time, that they are not under arrest, and that their biological needs will be met (water / coffee, bathroom breaks etc). If custodial, read them their rights. Follow your department policy / state law on exact steps here. 

After custodial issues work to build rapport with the suspect. “We’ve never met before. Before we get started, will you tell me a little about yourself?” Rapport establishes a behavioral baseline for the suspect. It also allows them time to relax and see that you are going to treat them fairly. 

Note: If you have a suspect that comes in just ready to confess or tell the truth, let them do that without insisting on rapport building and other steps. Otherwise, follow the plan. 

Transition into the interview proper. Ask the suspect what their understanding is of why they are there. If they don’t express understanding, let them know the nature of the investigation. It is ok to use soft language, but the crime being investigated should be clear. Example: Child Sexual Assault: “A child has accused you of having sexual contact with her.” Robbery: “I’m investigating an allegation that you were involved in assaulting a person and taking their money.” The most important thing is that it’s clear what you’re investigating, but you don’t provide too many details about the crime itself. 

During the interview itself, ask open questions. “Please tell me everything you did that day from beginning to end without leaving anything out.” 

Follow open questions with continuers and reflections. “Go on.” “What else?” “Because?” “Really?” “Then what?” “At the bar?” 

For important questions, be sure to provide time for the interviewee to respond. Do not be too quick to ask a follow up question. 

If you ask an important question, and they don’t answer, do not say anything until they do. This is known as a voice vacuum. Typically this will only last a few seconds. Really long ones can go on for minutes. Example: “Why would your DNA be on her body?” That’s a question that needs an answer. Do not talk again until they do. 

Ask tough questions, but do not accuse in the interview. Once you accuse, rapport is lost.

Only interrogate when the guilt of a suspect is reasonably certain. If you’re left on “maybe,” thank them for coming in and show them out. You may develop better information later and have another shot. 

Even if the suspect is in custody, interview first before interrogating. 

If the suspect is lying to you, let them lie. If you confront right away, you’ll give them a chance to modify their story to fit the change. If they develop an elaborate lie you know to be untrue, you’ve advanced your case more than you might think.

The easiest way to lie is by omission. Watch for holes in the story. Examine them. If you are thorough, you’ll force a liar into outright fabricating, which is much easier to spot and dismantle. 

Let the interviewee talk as much as possible if it’s relevant to the case. Don’t rush them. If they are talking about irrelevant things, let it go on for a few minutes then guide them back to the issue at hand. 

You’ll catch more people lying by letting them talk than by asking them repeated, rapid fire questions. Be patient. 

If you get lost, remember: who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Your interview is complete when you know all of the pertinent information that the interviewee is willing to share. 

The interview is, in my opinion, far more important than the interrogation. The interview is where you will usually corroborate the story of the victim in all matters except the criminal event itself. If everything in the victim’s story is true except, according to the suspect, the criminal event, then isn’t it likely that the criminal event is true too? 

Remember, the suspect could be innocent. Listen for alibis, examine proof, etc.

Execution / Interrogation: 

Accuse them outright. “Look, we know you did this. We just need to figure out why it happened.” 

During the accusation, do not say “I think you did this.” That shows doubt. An accusation needs to be clear. 

If you are 50/50 on the person being the guilty party, it is ok to soften the confrontation: “It’s obvious you know more about what happened than what you’re sharing.” 

After the accusation, be ready for a variety of reactions. Some people sit back and nod. Some stand up and yell. All sorts of things can happen. Stay calm. Keep going. 

Do not interview in the interrogation. The interrogation says to the suspect that the investigation is complete and their guilt is obvious. If you ask questions (interview) during the interrogation, it will be clear to the suspect that you do not know as much as you think you know. 

Do not argue during the interrogation. 

Do not present your case during the interrogation. “I know you did this because we have a witness, video, and DNA…” When you lay your case out, you give them the opportunity to know all that you know. This may lead them to realize your case is not as strong as you think. It’s easy to deny specific evidence, but it’s hard to deny non-specific certainty.

Remember: guilty suspects know they did it. You don’t have to prove it to them. You just have to make it easier for them to tell the truth than to continue lying about it.

After the accusation, discourage them from talking. “Now, I’ve let you talk. It’s my turn to talk. Please hear me out.” 

Ignore denials. Keep talking. 

Move into a theme or story that morally excuses the suspect without criminally excusing them. If you are investigating a crime that requires mental culpability, you would be absolutely wrong to suggest, “Maybe it was an accident.” An example of morally excusing in a robbery, for example, would be, “You don’t have anything and here they have everything and they’re showing it off!” 

Your theme is best if it comes from the interviewee. For example, a kidnapping suspect says during the interview, “Kidnapping? That sounds harsh for what you’re describing.” Your theme can be built on definitions. “You did this, we know that. But I hear you being upset about this being called kidnapping. Yes, you put her in the car. Yes, you drove her away, and yes, you didn’t let her out right when she wanted, but kidnapping? That really is a harsh word for what happened.” Here you’ve addressed the suspect’s concern without actually changing anything because taking a person away in your car and not letting them get out is kidnapping. 

The pattern of the interrogation is: Accuse, Tell stories / build theme, Accuse, Tell stories / build theme, Accuse, Tell stories / build theme. 

In terms of stories and themes, don’t overthink it. Anything associated to the theme can be good. Example: we had an interrogation this week where the theme was “Little girls playing big girl games (basically blaming the victim).” The process might look like: “Look, you had sexual contact with the girl, but I look at you, a guy that gets with lots of women, and I wonder how you got into that situation. It seems to me that the only thing that makes sense is that she came onto you. [theme] Sometimes little girls try to play big girl games and wrap older guys up in it. [story] You think people aren’t going to understand that? They will! When I was in high school, all the girls I wanted to date were dating older guys. [accusation] When you hooked up with her, it wasn’t right, but it wasn’t like something that’s never been done before. [theme / story] I investigated a case last year where a guy hooked up with his best friend’s daughter, who was underage. That girl’s dad was furious. Then the suspect did something unusual, he went to her dad and told her exactly how it happened. The girl had been flirting with him. He had been drinking. He let his body get ahead of his mind and acted on it. The suspect reminded the girl’s dad that he had hooked up with young girls back in the day too. At the end, the girl’s dad didn’t like what happened, but he understood what happened. That’s what we need to give people, an understanding of how this happened. [accusation] When you hooked up with her… That’s how it goes. Accusation. Story. Accusation. Story. 

When the suspect looks ready, give them the alternative question followed by a leading question. “It’s not like this happened a hundred times. I think this was a one time event. It was just the one time, right?” This is the moment that admissions happen. 

If they make an admission, praise them for it and tell them you already knew that. Do not ask them to tell the whole story. Get a few more small admissions. “Is this something you planned out or did it just happen?” “Do you feel badly about what you did?” “Would you take it back if you could?” Slowly bring them to the point that they are ready to talk and then ask them for narrative descriptions of everything that happened. 

If they don’t make an admission, go right back into accuse and theme building. 

Look for independent corroboration. Location of a weapon, people they told, or anything that can prove what they are saying. 

As the final thing in an interrogation, ask them how they’ve been treated. Most people, even after confessing, will say that you’ve treated them well (assuming that you really have). This destroys any later claim that they were coerced or mistreated etc. 

If you enjoyed this article, feel free to buy me a coffee. No pressure.