FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

The Law Officer's Pocket Manual - Bloomberg BNA
This handy 4" x 6" spiral-bound manual offers examples showing how rules are...

Departments : Point of Law

The Lawful Use of Deception

Sometimes you have to resort to trickery to get confessions from suspects.

January 01, 2007  |  by Devallis Rutledge - Also by this author

It might be nice if law enforcement officers never had to lie to a criminal suspect in order to solve a crime. In fact, some police advisors do suggest to officers that they should never mislead a suspect. Unfortunately, the reality is otherwise.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged, "Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer." (Sorrells v. U.S.) "Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution, for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available." (U.S. v. Russell)

What kinds of stratagems, ruses, trickery, and subterfuge might you use to develop admissible evidence of a suspect's guilt? The general rule is that deception can be used as long as it is not likely to induce an innocent person to commit a crime or to confess to a crime that he or she did not commit. Many familiar examples have been reviewed in decisions of the Supreme Court.

Undercover Investigations

U.S. v. Russell involved undercover infiltration of a drug manufacturing organization. The undercover officer gained the confidence of the suspects by offering to provide one of the ingredients for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The suspects were later arrested after making a quantity of the controlled substance. They argued that they had been entrapped by illegal police behavior, but the court rejected the defense:

"In drug-related offenses law enforcement personnel have turned to one of the only practicable means of detection: the infiltration of drug rings and a limited participation in their unlawful practices. Such infiltration is a recognized and permissible means of investigation."

The court ruled that since the suspects were "predisposed" to commit the crime and had not been pressured into doing so by coercive government influence, there was no entrapment.

Likewise, in Hampton v. U.S., the court approved the use of an informant to set up heroin sales between the suspect and undercover agents. The court repeated that such deception of a suspect does not constitute entrapment, unless government conduct "implants in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission." Because Hampton was a known heroin user and dealer with a predisposition to commit the crime, he was not entrapped by the police deception.

Official misconduct will often require undercover investigation. In Lopez v. U.S., for example, an IRS agent who was approached by a businessman who offered him bribes contacted federal investigators and became a wired informant for his subsequent meetings with the suspect. Accepting this tactic as necessary and proper for such crimes, the court said, "The risk of being overheard by an eavesdropper or deceived as to the identity of one with whom one deals is probably inherent in the conditions of human society. It is the kind of risk we assume whenever we speak."

A similar result was reached in Hoffa v. U.S., where a government informant infiltrated the inner circle of a labor racketeer and obtained evidence of jury tampering. The court rejected a claim that this use of an undercover operative violated the Fourth Amendment: "Neither this Court nor any member of it has ever expressed the view that the Fourth Amendment protects a wrongdoer's misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it."

Although the court found possible entrapment in U.S. v. Jacobson, based on the government's consistent efforts over two-and-a-half years to solicit a man with no proven criminal predisposition to order child pornography, the court nevertheless recognized that law enforcement could legitimately conduct less extensive undercover operations. Said the court, "There can be no dispute that the Government may use undercover agents to enforce the law. It is well settled that the fact that officers or employees of the government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises."

Illinois v. Perkins involved the use of an undercover officer, posing as a fellow cellmate, to gain the confidence of a murder suspect and obtain incriminating statements. The Supreme Court rejected the claim that statements obtained by such trickery should be inadmissible under Miranda, saying that "Miranda forbids coercion, not mere strategic deception. Ploys to mislead a suspect or lull him into a false sense of security that do not rise to the level of compulsion or coercion to speak are not within Miranda's concerns."

Tricks and Lies

In the investigation of virtually any crime, it is constitutionally permissible for police to play on a suspect's consciousness of guilt by pretending to have conclusive evidence of guilt that police do not in fact have, to prompt incriminating responses from the suspect. As long as the deception is plausible in light of what is known or suspected about the crime, such deception is not likely to induce an innocent person to confess to a crime he or she did not commit.

In Oregon v. Mathiason, for example, officers falsely told a burglary suspect they had lifted his fingerprints at the crime scene. The suspect subsequently confessed, and the court held that this deception did not invalidate the confession, even though the state court had erroneously ruled this deception relevant for Miranda purposes: "Whatever relevance the officer's false statement about having discovered Mathiason's fingerprints at the scene may have to other issues in the case, it has nothing to do with whether defendant was in custody for purposes of the Miranda rule." The court held the suspect's statements admissible, despite having been prompted by a false statement about non-existent evidence.

Similarly, in Frazier v. Cupp, police told a murder suspect that his accomplice had been arrested and had confessed, implicating him in the crime. In fact, the accomplice was still at large, but the suspect, believing that the accomplice had let the cat out of the bag, admitted his role in the killing. The Supreme Court found this deception insufficient to affect the admissibility of the statement: "The fact that the police misrepresented the statements that the accomplice made is, while relevant, insufficient in our view to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible."

Although police used no overt deception in Moran v. Burbine, the officers withheld from the suspect the fact that his family had retained an attorney who had called the station and "instructed" police not to talk to her client before she arrived. Ruling that this deception by omission did not invalidate the suspect's Miranda waiver, the court said that police were not constitutionally obligated to inform a suspect of everything he might care to know. Said the court, "We have never read the Constitution to require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights."

In Court

There is no reason to be uneasy when testifying as to the legitimate use of tricks or deception. Most jurors readily understand that undercover work and deception are often necessary to catch crooks whose crimes are typically committed in secrecy.

Devallis Rutledge, a former police officer and veteran prosecutor, is Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County District Attorney.

Comments (9)

Displaying 1 - 9 of 9

No one special @ 9/24/2015 7:50 PM

Police are disreputable. They lie and can not be trusted according to this article.

Maybe if more police thought about this they would realize why so many people distrust the police. Once police lie and manipulate people those people tell others and before to long the police are completely untrusted. I see this as the big reason wqhy police are so despised today.

You can try to justify this kind of approach. However, being a liar is not a job requirement I would want to meet.

I had a cop lie to me at least 15 years ago. I have not forgotten it or ever learned to trust those who would lie so easily. I have no criminal record. Character matters. So does personal integrity. Police should have both of those qualities.

Lynda @ 11/27/2015 11:04 AM

I am disheartened to know that police lie regularly. If they lie to catch a criminal, how easy is it for them to lie in other areas of their lives? I know one man who was a policeman who straightout lied to me about how many bills he had when he was asking me to cosign the mortgage on a house he could not afford. I am thankful that the mortgage broker was honest with me and disclosed what the policeman lied about. I did not cosign. But what a lesson!

MISTY @ 3/6/2016 5:36 AM

It sure does spill over into other areas of life! Most narc detectives end up cheating on their wives with young informants. Hmmm, maybe the dope made them do it. If police did not lie then they would not get shot at as much, plain and simple. Next time you lie mr. detective, the rookie getting shot is on you. Oh, I know, go console his widow now....shes hot.

Valerie @ 3/10/2016 4:21 PM

All the negative comments about cops and lying. What do people think? That when criminals are arrested they just through their hands up and say "Okay, you got me" well that's not how works in real life. The divorce rate within the law enforcement profession is no higher than any other profession. Deception is not lying, all interrogations are video taped with audio to make sure no rights are violated and nobody was coerced. I've never heard of anyone shooting a cop because they lied. I wonder how some people expect the police to do their job. Cops are humans too and you will find bad eggs. However the vast majority of them are highly professional, they are of good character and integrity. It is so sad that people can have one bad experience with one of those 'bad eggs' and judge the entire profession based on that experience.

Buck @ 6/16/2016 1:55 PM

"Deception is not lying" -Yeah yeah, keep telling yourself that.

For those that don't want to live in world of fantasy and make believe... the reflection of tactics and actions by law enforcement is a result of over regulations, and intrusion into peoples' personal lives and free will. Most deception is being used for prosecuting immoral and unethical laws, tiered systems of justice that are no better than feudal serfdoms of tax and obedience at the threat of violence.

In a country where billions and trillions of dollars in fraud was met with bank bail outs and not a single arrest (one actually) what do you expect? The few men who traded short on the market, who should've been 'canaries in the coal mine', 1 was later investigated by FBI, audited 4 times. The people actually responsible for the fraudulent market? They got off just fine. Congressman yelled at them in hearings, while reading emails about their "shitty loans" and selling 40k into 40 million via derivatives.

Yolanda A Williams @ 9/4/2016 6:53 PM

To what extent should law enforcement personnel induce the commission of an offense?

Samantha @ 9/9/2016 5:57 PM

its very scary to me that law enforcement doesnt have to follow same rules and laws as the rest of us and put innocent people in prison because of it.they should have to be held accountable for their family is living a nightmare due to this

Diane @ 4/9/2018 10:46 PM

What states use audio/mind reading /internet/cell phone/internal body two way bugs (Some types of implants) and are they legal in Wisconsin? are they occasionally used for investigations are used for tricks and lies also? In Wisconsin we have some people not cops ( unnamed)who are talking about using these but we think not for the good and possibly for no police hacking infiltration!

Diane @ 4/9/2018 10:56 PM

Hi! just to let you know:I think we have a problem with mind reading and implanted Communications technology that isn't not police situations!Our police are our greatest protectors and some of the neatest ever, being my family relatives were in that field and proud to be in that heritage so just want to protect those we love and bless our leaders also: Truly in Wisconsin

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Stories

First Tactical: The Refined Tac Pant
"The V2 pant is performance-ready and purpose-built to handle any mission that arises...
Letting Go
Decide to live in the now, dealing with the things you can control.
Who Should Be the HAIX Hero of the Month?
Nominees for HAIX Hero of the Month have been chosen, and now, we want to hear more from...
Two Tools for Field Communications
Two models may help your field conversations, depending on who you're talking to....

Police Magazine