First, we must train officers in the lawful use of police deception. We must train them on Supreme Court case law and the controlling cases and laws of their jurisdiction. Despite the conflicting court decisions, there are basic agreements and parameters amongst courts that can provide guidance. A local prosecutor can provide controlling case law from the department’s jurisdiction.
Next, we must provide officers scenario-based training in the use of such deception. These scenarios must:
• Develop officers’ knowledge and mastery of the circumstances courts look at to determine whether police deception violates due process
• Lead officers to devise lawful deceptions and to apply them non-coercively in various circumstances
• Increasingly raise the stakes, make officers aware of the potentially corrosive effect of regularly lying, and give them specific strategies for protecting against such corrosive effect
• Include the officer being cross-examined at trial on the use of deception
This training need is greatest for veteran officers, who are most likely to use deception in investigations and are most subject to the potentially corrosive effect of repeatedly using deception.
Third, the profession should address whether to develop policies and procedures for officers’ use of deception. Law enforcement has seen the need for such guidelines in other areas like the use of force and high-speed pursuits. The stakes for officers, departments and the public can be just as high in this arena.
Such procedures might consider:
• Should strategic deception be used only if other means of gathering evidence have been unsuccessful or the officer can articulate that such means would be futile?
• Should officers have to obtain approval or a second opinion before using deception?
• Should the procedures be the same for deception used with a suspect as a witness?
• Should the seriousness of the offense or the weight of other evidence be factors?
• Should officers have to complete training before being authorized to use deception?
• If taping of suspect interviews is not already required, should it be whenever deception is used?
