Your Word Against Ours: How The FBI's 'No Electronic Recording' Policy Rigs The Game... And Destroys Its Credibility
from the everybody-knows-the-dice-are-loaded dept
Considering the FBI's unseemly interest in recording phone calls and inserting itself into all sorts of electronic conversations (all without asking permission first), it's incredibly strange that it refuses to use one of the most basic electronic devices available: a voice recorder. In fact, as Harvey Silverglate's op-ed for the Boston Globe points out, it's forbidden to use any sort of recording device when interviewing suspects.
FBI agents always interview in pairs. One agent asks the questions, while the other writes up what is called a “form 302 report” based on his notes. The 302 report, which the interviewee does not normally see, becomes the official record of the exchange; any interviewee who contests its accuracy risks prosecution for lying to a federal official, a felony. And here is the key problem that throws the accuracy of all such statements and reports into doubt: FBI agents almost never electronically record their interrogations; to do so would be against written policy.Without a recording to compare the transcript to, we are expected to trust the FBI's version of the interrogation. If we can't trust it, we are left to draw one of the following conclusions.
1. The transcript is completely false.
2. The transcript is heavily editorialized.
3. The transcript interprets certain statements, but is otherwise accurate.
4. The transcript is completely accurate.
Of all of these choices, number 4 seem least likely. In fact, one wonders why the FBI bothers interviewing anyone when it could simply put two agents in a room and allow them to bang out a confession on behalf of the accused.
If a suspect claims the transcription is erroneous, it's his word against theirs. His words, of course, disappeared into the ether as soon as they were spoken. The FBI's version lives on, printed on paper.
We don't need to ask "why" this is a problem. There are rhetorical questions and then there are stupid questions, the sort helpful teachers and guidance counselors continue to pretend don't exist. A better question is, "Why hasn't this been changed?" Silverglate notes this policy is an updated version of a 1990's policy, crafted in 2006, long long long long after recording devices were ubiquitous. The excuse that this policy was "logistically necessary" because of technological limitations was ridiculous in 1990, much less 16 years later.
This is a problem. More specifically, this is Robel Phillipos' problem.
Phillipos is a 19-year-old Cambridge resident, former UMass Dartmouth student, and friend of alleged Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He faces charges of making materially false statements during a series of interviews with FBI agents. If convicted, he could get up to eight years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.How do we know he did this? Because the FBI says he did. It has the "paperwork" to "prove" it. As was pointed out above, simply questioning the transcript opens the questioner up for charges of "making false statements." Phillipos could be completely innocent but that means nothing when the accusers are writing the narrative. Scott Greenfield shows just how easily an innocent answer could turn into damning "evidence" in the hands of an FBI interrogation team.
Q: We found files on your computer showing that you went to a website with instructions on how to make a bomb, so we know you did it. When did you first go to the bomb website?Slick, isn't it? And when someone points out a misquote, the accusation is turned on them just as easily. "Are you lying now or were you lying earlier?"
A: I surf the web constantly and go through, like, a million pages. I have no idea what pages I searched or when. How could I possibly know?
Notated in 302: D cannot recall when he first went to bomb website. Went "constantly."
This is nasty business but it gets even nastier. Beyond the hilarious claim that tech simply hasn't advanced enough since 1990 to allow reliable voice recording, there's a much darker rationale guiding this ridiculous (and dangerous) policy.
The more honest — and more terrifying — justification for non-recording given in the memo reads as follows: “. . . perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants. Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness and misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair deceit.” Translated from bureaucratese: When viewed in the light of day, recorded witness statements could appear to a reasonable jury of laypersons to have been coercively or misleadingly obtained.Sometimes the "reasonable jury" would be right -- the statement has been "coercively or misleadingly obtained." Other times, it may not be as clear-cut. But in a day and age where recording interviews and interrogations is the expectation, the FBI continues to play by its own (convenient) rules. And if the person being interrogated doesn't like it, he can expect additional charges to brought. This puts the alleged criminal in the unenviable position of having "anything he says" twisted, rewritten and heavily paraphrased before being used against him.
Silverglate cautions to withhold judgement on Phillipos until all the facts are in. But as long as the FBI continues to use this "recording" technique, don't grant its statements any credibility. They have none.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fbi, interviews, recording
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Miranda??
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do or say may falsified, editorialized, or misinterpreted.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No interviews
Harvey Sivlergate breaks it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No interviews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDsbjAYXcQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No interviews
Legal scholars continued to be baffled by the sheer number of people who willingly implicate themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No interviews
Kangaroo, meet court; court, meet miscarriage of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Answer
Never say a word to any law enforcement official. Ever. It can come back to bite you in ways you could never imagine. You have a right to remain silent. Exercise it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple Answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never talk to Police
Never talk to police, but if you have to, never do so without a lawyer (representing you!) present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/
And I happen to agree. Unless you absolutely, positively have to, DO. NOT. SPEAK. TO. THE. COPS. And when you do, bring a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick steps
2) Request a lawyer during questioning.
3) Do not say another word until the lawyer arrives; no matter how much they bully you, try to be your 'friend' and want to 'help' you, or beat you with a rubber hose and/or phone book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Know what their state legislature did to rectify the problem? They required ALL police interrogations be recorded, because of how useful of such videos have proven to be at both getting incriminating evidence against the real criminal, and at proving innocence of the falsely accused (including those bullied into false confessions by police).
The Illinois police even supported the changes, the FBI could learn something from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miranda??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well golly gee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: well golly gee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Witch Hunters
That is a nice offence, you are guilty of you agree with our version, and guilty if you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interpretation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lop-sided
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lop-sided
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lop-sided
Lying to a federal officer (not just law enforcement) even by mere denial is a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Title 18, chapter 1001.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The article headline?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never leave home without one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can stop it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asserting the Fifth
No. This is not satire.
This is Salinas v Texas.
Argued April 17, 2013. Opinion pending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Recording
now, would you mind telling *WHEN*/*WHERE* kops, persecutors (sic), or other -you know- officers of the court are ACTUALLY, ever prosecuted for 'lying' ? ? ?
(short answer: practically, relatively speaking, NO ONE, ever...)
now, tell me the times mere, puny citizens have been persecuted for mere lying of no consequence and put in the gaol ? ? ?
ALL THE FUCKING TIME...
yes, it IS lop-sided, at EVERY stage of The System; it is *MEANT* to be lop-sided, NOT as some sort of checks and balances, BUT AS A MEANS TO SUBJUGATE US 99%...
if you are poor and/or brown, The System will chew you up and shit you out, over NOTHING; if you are the annointed ones, you can loot the world's economy, commit war krimes, torture, illegally wiretap, collude, and essentially break any/all laws with impunity...
THAT is the upside-down world we live in now...
(because korporations are people, doncha know...)
REMEMBER: power NEVER devolves voluntarily, NEVER !
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Recording
> from you as "evidence"
Then decline to participate in the interview.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Recording
Bottom line. When dealing with the FBI or the police. Shut up. Shut. Up. Just shut up...until your lawyer arrives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Recording
> in the interview if at the end of the interview
> they took your recording device as "evidence"
Then use a recorder that streams to the cloud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again Government shows its...
What the government can't figure out to do, Insurance companies, help desks and many others around the world figured out how to do about 30 years ago.
That's right, if you are in an accident the insurance company will want to take a RECORDED statement. Almost any help desk will record at least random calls and many record them all.
Also it is funny that they can't figure out the logisitcs to tape your interrogation, but they have no problems figuring out how to tap your phone, track your car, put of cell towers to process all your cell phone activity...
Just a bit selective I should think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is very confusing, unless the endgame is just to make sure no regular citizens have any rights, then no need to waste time protecting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Never have beaten anyone and I'm not married."
Note: Suspect has become evasive and refuses to answer the direct questions that are asked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I beat her all the time. With Chess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's wrong
Claiming the system is stacked is crap, because plenty of guilty people go free every year, because of technicalities and exceptional circumstances. If the deck was stacked, those would have been "fixed" a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong
The truth is there is absolutely zero reason not to video tape interviews. If the police have nothing to hide they wouldn't mind me taping them yet they get really upset when they are taped.
It is very odd that those in power abhor being taped themselves while at the same time telling us that we shouldn't mind being taped and otherwise surveilled if we have nothing to hide.
The truth of the matter is that we should not be taped by them and ALL of their actions should be recorded, they have the power to restrict my freedom.
Those with little power need littler surveillance or oversight, those with a lot of power need a great deal of oversight and surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, come on, FBI!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, come on, FBI!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't want video because they often have a 2nd or 3rd agent standing next to the 'suspect' making threatening gestures, standing over them with fists raised etc.....
Also video would show the bruising when the smaller punching is ineffective.
FBI standard policy after interviews is to take 'damaged' suspects into solitary confinement until the injuries have healed enough to not be visible anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]