Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation
Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation
This domain tests whether you can obtain reliable information lawfully. The exam distinguishes interviews, which gather information, from interrogations, which question a suspect in custody or under accusation, and rewards planning, rapport, precise questioning, and documentation over theatrics.
Core rules and concepts
- Prepare: review evidence, write objectives, identify legal status, and decide whether warnings are required. For military suspects, Article 31(b) warnings apply; custody triggers Miranda.
- Use a funnel: free recall, then open-ended probes, then focused questions. Ask for sensory and temporal detail before pressing on inconsistencies.
- Trauma-informed interviewing matters in sexual assault and violent crime: explain the process, avoid blaming language, and let the person use their own words.
- Record verbatim admissions and denials. Note who was present, start and end times, breaks, warnings, waivers, and invocations.
- Do not treat demeanor as proof. Nervousness, eye contact, and fidgeting are weak indicators; false confessions occur with pressure, fatigue, and contamination by disclosed facts.
Worked example
A sailor reports a sexual assault but gives a fragmented timeline. Begin with an open invitation to describe what happened, then ask about before, during, and after in sensory terms. Only later ask clarifying questions about locations and identities. Do not reveal suspect details or other witnesses' accounts; that risks contamination.
Traps
Leading questions; talking over silence; promising leniency; ignoring a request for counsel; and writing a summary that turns the subject's words into your conclusions.