A survey of US police on-the-scene and station witness interviews and recording practices

ABSTRACT

The current study sought to contribute to the literature on U.S. police officers’ knowledge and use of empirically-informed interviewing recommendations by aiming to replicate previous findings and expanding upon this research by differentiating between on-the-scene versus station interviewing practices, specifically probing electronic recording of these interviews. Respondents included 392 police officers from 36 states who answered questions about their witness/victim interviewing training; logistics/statistics (e.g. duration, interviewing environment); use of recommended interviewing techniques; pre-interview information; and written and electronic recording behaviors. Results revealed a lack of witness/victim-specific training, a disproportionate focus on suspect interviewing, and a lack of familiarity with interviewing guidelines (i.e. CI and the 1999 NIJ Guide). However, many CI-recommended techniques were reportedly used frequently, and CI-trained officers reported significantly more use of these techniques. Additionally, respondents indicated 33% of interviews have multiple interviewers present and 14% include multiple interviewees, and 67% of respondents indicated witnesses/victims are interviewed multiple times. Finally, officers reported that at-the-station interviews lasted significantly longer than on-the-scene interviews, and that 74% of on-the-scene and 89% of at-the-station interviews are electronically recorded. Findings suggest and support previous findings that although officers reported frequently using several recommended interviewing techniques, training in witness/victim interviewing is still lacking.

KEYWORDS:

• Police interviews
• witness interviews
• witness interviewing techniques
• electronic recording
• police training

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Because of the potentially sensitive nature of the information asked and to encourage complete and honest answers, respondents were assured data would only be shared in aggregate form. This additionally ensured that no participant could potentially be identified by any coworkers or superiors in their department. Individualized data is therefore not available.

Notes

1 Note that based on standard police academy training information the maximum number of hours participants could indicate was 100 (n = 110) and the maximum number of days was 20 (n = 223).

2 As few respondents indicated having received training in the NIJ guidelines, the influence of NIJ training on reported use of recommended interviewing techniques was not analyzed.

3 Note the maximum duration participants could choose for both questions was 120 min (n = 2).

4 Note the maximum duration participants could choose was 300 min (n = 1).

5 Note that the open-ended option (‘other’) made it clear that despite being asked specifically about witness/victim interviews, some investigators considered suspect interrogations interviews, so these numbers may be skewed.

6 Several answers by those who selected ‘other’ were recoded as ‘not mandatory’ or ‘mandatory,’ which is why these numbers add up to more than 388 – similar to the ‘other’ responses throughout survey/results.

7 Note that the maximum number of days participants could indicate between the station interview and writing the report was 60 (n = 4).

8 Note that the maximum number of hours participants could indicate was 50 (n = 7).