One communication technique that is seldom included in a police training program, but one that is often employed, is for an officer to simply lie to achieve a desired goal. For example, consider the officer who tells a potential combative suspect that he needs to place him in handcuffs only temporarily while completing some necessary paperwork, and that he will release him when he’s finished. Once the cuffs are secure however, the officer advises the suspect he is in fact under arrest. He lies to avoid a potentially dangerous situation. Another example is the officer who advises an abusive husband that his wife does not wish to file a complaint, a lie, and then attempts to get him to admit that he struck her. Of course, once he does, then the husband is placed under arrest. And finally, consider the hostage-taker who gives up after he is informed by the responding officers that the prosecuting attorney has agreed to charge him only with a minor infraction, again, a lie intended to de-escalate the crisis and effect the safe release of the hostage.
The idea of the police lying seems repulsive to some, but to others, especially the police, it is a legitimate method for containing and de-escalating a crisis at times. Is it legal? Absolutely; however, there are limitations on the extent to which the police can lie. The courts have essentially ruled that intrinsic lies, or those lies that misrepresent a person’s connection to a crime in order to gain a confession, are acceptable. For example, telling a suspect that his car was observed by a witness at the scene of the crime, even if not true, is an acceptable intrinsic lie. Extrinsic lies, or those lies that may potentially distort a person’s ability to make a rational choice about confessing to a crime, are mostly not acceptable. For example, threatening to take a mother’s children from her unless she confesses to a crime would likely render the confession inadmissible due to its coercive nature. Some of the relevant court cases on police lying are as follows:
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969). Holland v. McGinnis, 963 F.2d 1044, 1050-51 (7th Cir. 1992). Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 (1963). Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959). State v. Kelekolio, 849 P.2d 58, 73 (Haw. 1993). United States v. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2000). United States v. Rodman, 519 F.2d 1058; 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13204 (1st Cir. 1975).
Discussion Questions (select one of the following questions and draft a response):
1. Should the police ever resort to the use of lies with vulnerable or mentally ill persons, even if legal and used for the purpose of saving lives?
The use of unauthorized aids can be penalized as a minor or major violation of the academic integrity policy. Minor violations of the academic integrity policy can be penalized by a warning or by deductions of up to 95% on the assignment. Major violations of the academic integrity policy can be penalized either by a zero for the assignment or an “F” for the course. 
All assignments submitted as a file upload in Canvas are automatically run through Turnitin, which evaluates submissions for possible use of AI. Other assignments, including discussion posts, may also be run through Turnitin to evaluate the possible use of AI. If Turnitin flags an assignment submission for the apparent use of AI, I am obligated to investigate the submission and report it if a violation of the academic integrity policy appears to have occurred. Students who have violations reported against them have the right to appeal according to the university’s academic integrity process.