Fabrication and Misrepresentation of Evidence The frustrations and failures of attempts to gather sufficient evidence against suspects ine...
Fabrication and Misrepresentation of Evidence The frustrations and failures of attempts to gather sufficient evidence against suspects inevitably provides the temptation to take shortcuts or to fill in the gaps through fabricating evidence. For example, though deceiving suspects in undercover operations is legally permissible, and arguably ethical, some practices cross the line to intentionally mislead attorneys, judges and juries who try and judge the suspects. Undercover officers often surreptitiously record suspects in order to document incriminating activities and admissions. If they have difficulty getting sufficiently incriminating statements on tape,
they may engage in deceptive practices to nevertheless give the appearance that suspects have self-incriminated. For example, the officer may talk about a crime that has taken place or that is being planned as if the suspect is still present when, unknown to the audience, he has actually left the room or walked out of earshot. The silence following the agent’s taped statements can be considered “adoptive admissions” of guilt on the part of “silent” suspects. An agent may talk about picking up some “speakers” (a term dope dealers sometimes use to refer to drugs) with a suspect that understands the term to mean audio-speakers. If the suspect agrees to pick them up,
observers can later be misled to assume he knew the term referred to drugs. Additional strategies used by undercover agents to artificially convey the notion that targets have been involved in criminal activities include destroying or tampering with tapes (e.g., introducing static to obscure parts of the discussion inconsistent with suspect guilt), interrupting or speaking on behalf of suspects, withholding information from suspects that would clarify what was being talked about (and perhaps lead to suspect denials), and outright scripting suspects so that the target audience ends up hearing, in sum, a recorded full confession in suspects’ own words. Another of the few contexts in which deception is discouraged involves testifying in court settings. Research suggests, however, that some officers do cross this line. Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception The term “testilying” was coined by New York City police officers to refer to “justified” perjury—ranging from lying about the circumstances surrounding a particular event to outright planting evidence at crime scenes—in a presumed effort to distinguish the practice from inexcusable dishonesty. Indeed, many officers who do lie under oath argue that such “testilying” is justifiable, since it serves a greater good. That is, some accept testilying as a way to achieve the goals of justice, even if accomplished through questionable, and perhaps illegitimate, means. Testilying is believed to be most frequently used to prevent the acquittal of guilty defendants. Indeed, it has been speculated that one reason officers resort to lying during investigative, pretrial and trial proceedings, is their widespread belief that they are much more skilled at identifying suspects’ culpability than judges, juries, and prosecutors. Therefore, it is up to officers themselves to ensure that guilty suspects are not wrongly released, through false testimony if necessary.
Other personal reasons why officers sometime resort to testilying are 1) attempts to cover up their own incompetence or participation in corruption or other illegal activities; 2) monetary gains, such as overtime pay obtained from the extra time it takes to process arrests and testifying in court; and 3) personal or departmental goals to increase conviction rates. In summary, lying and deception among law officers is legally sanctioned and widely considered to be necessary for effective evidence gathering: though all such deceptive practices are criticized by some as unnecessary, ineffective, counterproductive and/or simply unethical-- inevitably leading to inaccuracies, injustices, and even corruption. Establishing the legal and ethical boundaries of morally-questionable law enforcement practices is a complex endeavor, as it involves weighing goals of efficiency against principles of justice. J. Guillermo Villalobos University of Nevada, Reno Michael J. Williams University of Nevada, Reno Deborah Davis University of Nevada, Reno See Also: Self-Justification; Deception Motives; Justice; Lying: Accusations; Morals and Ethics; Perjury.
No comments