General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Why is it not the FBI's policy to electronically record witness interviews?

Asked by luigirovatti (3001points) August 28th, 2021

What I think is the reason is related to Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1001, which makes it a felony for anyone to make a false statement to the FBI. This, in turn, means that if there’s no verbatim record the witness actually said, whatever words the agent deigns to write in the 302 (a record created by the agent’s notes. Not signed by the witness.) become, in effect, the witness’ words. As do the omissions. The witness can never contradict anything that the agent writes (or chooses not to write) in the 302 without facing the threat of felony charges under section 1001.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

8 Answers

filmfann's avatar

It’s more likely that they do record them, and just deny it.

kritiper's avatar

It’s illegal to record anyone without their permission. So no one will talk, probably.

JLoon's avatar

Transcriptions of witness interviews written under rule 302 have been an issue for decades. And the dirty secret FBI & DOJ authorities try to ignore is that grand juries have increasingly refused to indict where charges are based soley on 302 witness statements.

@Tropical_Willie – That DOJ policy memo was long overdue. BUT, it only covers custodial interviews , where a suspect is questioned after arrest and following Miranda warnings – Not the witness interviews luigirovatti is talking about in this question.

@kritiper – Actually it’s not. And everyone who voluntarily speaks to law enforcement on evidence is assumed to have waived any privacy protection.

flutherother's avatar

The FBI prefers 302 records, which it creates, as it gives them control over the evidence presented to court. The reasons the FBI have given for not recording interviews are not very convincing:

1. It would undermine rapport building with the interviewee.
2. Historically, the procedure has seldom been challenged.
3. Established interview techniques may seem unreliable to lay persons.
4. It would create too much work in transcription and impede the admission of evidence.

In the UK interviews are recorded unless the witness objects. In that case a written record is produced which the witness must sign.

kritiper's avatar

It might be all right to record, but it can’t be used in court without permission.

JLoon's avatar

@kritiper – Yes and no. It’s really a question of admissibility, and the determination gets made by the court based on facts & circumstances – not any individual claim of privacy.

California Supreme Court ruling :
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/its-illegal-to-secretly-record-conversations-in-ca-but-the-audio-can-be-used-in-criminal-cases-state-supreme-court/

Department of Justice Memorandum of Law:
https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/memorandum-law-admissibility-tapes-and-transcripts

kritiper's avatar

When a person is being recorded, an electronic “Beep” must be broadcast so that the person being recorded KNOWS he/she is being recorded.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther