Questioning Drunks/Druggies

[Orleander]

Dayna got me to thinkign about this, so blame her.

If you get a suspect and he is drunk/high, can you legally quesion him? I mean, this person may ramble and say all kinds of things, sign a confession, and never even be aware of it the next day.

[Dayna36]

:eek: What, you think I am drunk/high?

[hawkman]

Why couldn't you question them? For more serious crimes it might be better to wait until they sober up, but some times people are more truthfull when intoxicated. When I get a DUI arrest, I have to ask some post arrest questions like were where you going, what direction, how much to drink, etc... The more messed up they are, the better their answers are to help prove they were intoxicated.

[Oldbillplod]

You cannot interview someone as a suspect or aggrieved whilst they are under the infuence of anything as it would be inadmissable.
However if they make a significant statement then that would be admissable in court.

[michiganstud]

No matter what drunk is asked how much they have had to drink its always the same response: "two beers" LOL

[Joeyd6]

We video the whole thing so the jury gets to see it. Usually the attorney is pretty sharp but it works great when they suspect satstes they are not drunk, openly waive their rights on paper and verbally and then bomb teh test or fail to blow. We have 2 chances at court in NY if you refuse to blow. First you get an immediate license supension so when the lawyer challenegs that you go to MV court. Then you have to go to criminal court for the leagl stuff. A few times you get a smart one who refuses to blow. They lose their license for a year and try to fight that....but the video always seals the deal and they losse. NY has a law you must take the test or automatic suspensions....regardless of teh overall result. Then they go to court to answer thecriminal charges and the lawyer gets them off. So they have no DWI conviction on their record....but they are walking or using public transportation for a year!

[oscarmitre]

Not in this jurisdiction, the evidence of the interview would be inadmissible. We are required to videotape or audiotape interviews and it would be obvious that the person was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs and therefore wouldn't be voluntarily giving answers. The only thing we can do is weigh up the evidence and see if we have enough to lock the person up then interview them when they are sober. That brings in all sorts of issues concerning bail because here there is a presumption that they will be given bail unless we find good cause to object to bail.

When I was a supervisor in the field one of my troops had this problem. A suspect for a robbery (not armed) was located and he was under the influence of liquor. We discussed the matter and arrested him for robbery because we had good evidence - including video evidence from a street camera. We objected to bail and that was fine, he could have appealed to a Magistrate for a review but he was out of it as soon as he laid on the bench in the cell. He was interviewed the next day when he sobered up. The case went through without a problem.

[greg6099]

A couple of issues I would like to address.

Scenario. First response officer walks into the scene of a murder. Bad guy is there and is Under the Influence of liquor or a drug. I mean he is absolutely legless.

Do we question him; or be nice and determine he is UIL / drug and tuck him in for the night and give him breakfast the next morning?

My advice, as a supervisor, is to quesion the hell out of him right there and then. Obtain admissions, lies or whatever he decides to tell you in his drunken stupor.

The courts, the lawyers, the police prosecution team, the jury, the judge and whoever else becomes involved after that can decide what is admissable and what is not.

When this guy sobers up, he may never talk to you again after speaking with his defence lawyer.

It is not, in my humble opionion, the job of the first repsonse officers to determine how much the defendant is affected by liquor or a drug and whether or not they should ask questions at that time.

I concur with Oscarmitre, obviuosly any admissions unfairly gained would be inadmissable but at least we (the police) would have some inside knowledge as to how the crime was committed.

We question drink drivers when they are way over the legal limit and that conversation is admissable in Court.

Police gather evidence.
The Court determines matters of fact and law.