Discuss the Meaning of "Interrogation" and What the Law Allows and What it Doesn't

Interrogation
Name:
Institute:
Interrogation is a form of questioning by law enforcement officers, the subject directed to this questioning must be in custody (Bloom and Brodin 2004). The authors referred the case of Rhodes Island v Innis (2001) which expanded the meaning of interrogation to include any words or actions on the part of the police that the police believe would lead to an incriminating response from a suspect. The court in Innis found that where a police engaged in a formal conversation about a murder weapon with a suspect it did not amount to an interrogation. Bloom and Brodin (2000) gives another meaning stating that, interrogation involves conduct with intention to get a confession, it also involves such actions that are foreseeable by the police officers to elicit a confession. Interrogation is the direct questioning of a suspect to gather evidence of criminal activity and try to get a confession (Gaines and Miller 2005).
Arizona v Mauro (1987) the court focused on both the perception of the suspect and the conduct of the police in determining whether an interrogation took place (Bloom and Brodin 2004). The court can infer the conduct of the police to decide that there was functional equivalent of interrogation, in such circumstance the Miranda protections would apply (Bloom and Brodin 2004).United States v Allen (1998) the detectives told the suspect that he had been identified by thee eye witnesses that did not constitute interrogation, it was routine to inform the suspect on the status of investigation.
Interrogation is a an accusatory form of questioning a suspect, this is in the effort of making him or her reveal the truth ( Inbao 2013).The author further states that it follows an non accusatory form of questioning known as interview, this therefore suggests that the investigator does not believe in the suspect’s account In the non-accusatory stage. A further definition of interrogation is that it is the use of certain tactics by an investigator in the verge of getting the truth from a suspect (Inbao 2013).
Bloom and Brodin (2004) referred to the case Commonweath v Rubio (1989) the court ruled that display of incriminating evidence amounted to interrogation. In State v Ward (1990), the police showed the suspects photographs of two suspected accomplices and stated that "these two guys were arrested and you are going to be charged with the robbery", this statement according to the court was incriminating and therefore amounted to interrogation. Presence of a police officer during the suspect’s conversation with his wife did not amount to interrogation Arizona v Mauro (1987).
The purpose of interrogation is to get the truth from the suspect not a confession, however in the course of it the suspect may give a confession which may be regarded as the truth (Inbao 2013). Ashcraft v Tennesse (1989) illustrates this point, the court found confessions obtained through a prolonged questioning under powerful electric lights inadmissible. The investigator should therefore be careful by the means such confessions are obtained during interrogation. .It should only be conducted according to Inbao when the investigator has strong believe that the suspect has not ...