Satisfy the Demands of Justice: Embrace Electronic Recording of Custodial Investigative Interviews Through Legislation, Agency Policy, or Court Mandate

• NCJ Number: 218423
• Journal: American Criminal Law Review Volume: 44 Issue: 1 Dated: Winter 2007 Pages: 141-194
• Author(s): Julie Renee Linkins
• Date Published: 2007
• Length: 54 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article argues that the American criminal justice system should mandate the use of electronic recordings of all custodial investigative interviews.

Abstract

Courts that seek to establish recording policies are encouraged to act on due process rights protection and supervisory power as a basis for court action. The author encourages all components of the American criminal justice system to accept electronic recording of investigative interviews as in the best interests of the accused, the police, the court, the victims, and the public. The main argument is that in order to protect individual rights, investigate crimes, and administer justice, the American criminal justice system should mandate through legislation, agency policy, or court action the electronic monitoring of all custodial investigative interviews. The key reason for this argument is that mandated recordings of suspect interviews would represent a vital step toward the protection of the rights of the accused and the police and would preserve critical evidence while also enhancing the daily operation of the criminal justice system. Electronic recordings have been shown to improve police practices and conserve police and judicial resources from frivolous claims of misconduct. The analysis focuses on legislation in Texas, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia that has mandated recording in certain circumstances. The advantages of using legislative action to establish recording polices are reviewed, which include the opportunity for public participation in decision making and the development of uniformity of law and research-based solutions. Examples of specific policies that have been established at the agency level are provided, which offer a first step toward legislation and lends flexibility and the opportunity for experimentation before legislative action is undertaken. Guidelines for recording policies for law enforcement agencies are offered, which should include elements such as who should decide which interviews to record; clear definitions of when the recordings are to begin and end; and how to label, document, and store the recordings. Footnotes