How Far May Law Enforcement Officers Go in Misleading Suspects During Interrogations?

Law enforcement officers may mislead suspects during questioning. For example, an officer may falsely tell a suspect that an accomplice has confessed, or may falsely state that incriminating physical evidence has been found. Courts generally permit such deception, reasoning that misrepresentations can be effective tactics and are not necessarily so coercive as to render a resultant confession involuntary or unreliable. But just how far can an officer go? Generally, deception during interrogation is permissible. The leading Supreme Court case in this area is Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969). In that case, an officer interrogating a murder suspect falsely told the suspect that his cousin, a suspected accomplice, had confessed. The suspect himself then confessed, but later claimed that his confession was involuntary. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which rejected the defendant’s argument. It stated that the officer’s use of deception was “relevant” yet “insufficient in our view to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible.” The Court did not pronounce a bright-line rule, emphasizing that voluntariness must always be assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances. The most important North Carolina case in this area is State v. Jackson, 308 N.C. 549 (1983). Officers were investigating a stabbing death and suspected the defendant. They found a knife they believed was the murder weapon, obtained an identical knife, and used an officer’s blood to create a bloody thumbprint on the blade of the replica knife. While interrogating the defendant, they falsely told him that an eyewitness had identified [...]