Legal Question in Criminal Law in Michigan

A police officer can use an interrogation / interview technique in which the officer is misleading.

For example, the officer might tell the person that eye witnesses have already told him that the suspect was seen doing X, Y or Z when in fact no one had told the police those details. Or, the officer might say that an incident was captured on security cameras, or that there was fingerprint evidence, when in fact none of that was true. Sometimes people will admit to crimes if they think that police already "have the goods" on them. Police can take advantage of the "confession is good for the soul" part of human nature.

I once heard of an incident where a detective was interviewing a suspect in a criminal sexual conduct case where he was alleged to have inserted his finger into the victim's private area. After the interview stalled, the detective said, 'Well, then what do you say about the fingerprints we found inside her [private area]?" (which they cannot do even in CSI Hollywood investigations) ... whereupon the suspect confessed. The defense didn't try to suppress that confession.

On the other hand, the legal issue affected by all of this is whether, at some point, the statement is no longer "voluntary" because of coercive police activity. If so, the judge can suppress the statement. The judge has to look at the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding the interview and weight many factors, such as: the person's age, maturity and education; the person's prior contact with police (i.e., how 'police savvy' was the person?); whether the person was ill, or deprived of food/water/medicine; whether the interview was "prolonged" (too long); whether police threatened the person; etc.

A police officer may use any kind of deception other than the threat of personal injury to the suspect to further the investigation of a crime.

To a certain extent, yes and to a certain degree, NO. Daniel Hajji. 248.865.4700