Would You Be a Good Police Interrogator?

Interrogation.

Just the word elicits your vision of forcible confinement in a hot and windowless room, shoved in a wooden chair with one leg shorter than others, a bright light from a bare bulb burning over your head, and hulking forms of trench-coated detectives firing hardboiled questions in your face.

The truth is different. A lot different. There’s a high skill involved in getting useful (and courtroom admissible) information from people, and not everyone is cut out for the job. Are you? Would you be a good police interrogator?

To start, drop the “interrogation” word. It’s not correct to say “interrogation” in today’s professional police procedures. The right terms are “interview” and “dialogue exchange”. And, they’re more applicable because the vast majority of police-civilian interactions are respectful interchanges of relevant information.

I’ve spent a good part of my adult life talking to people and getting information. I learned long ago that you get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. I also learned you slide a lot further on bullshit than you do on gravel. I made those principles the core of my information-gathering days. I also practiced another fundamental rule. That’s that the best interrogators interviewers are the best listeners.

Where’s this going? I subscribe to Psychology Today. I recently read a piece by Mary Ellen O’Toole, Ph.D. in her regular column Criminal Minds where she set out ten questions with graded responses to her Are You A Good Listener Test. Dr. Mary Ellen O’Toole was a senior profiler at the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit and author of Dangerous Instincts: How Gut Feelings Betray Us. Here’s her short ten-question exam to see if you would be a good police interrogator. Sorry… police interviewer.

ARE YOU A GOOD LISTENER TEST

1.Typically, how emotional (frightened, insecure, angry, etc.) do I get when I am attempting to interview someone? (Rate this on a scale of 1-3)

1 = very emotional
2 = nonemotional and detached
3 = I remain interested and tempered

2. Typically, how often do I interrupt?

1 = several times during a conversation
2 = just once or twice during a conversation
3 = almost never

3. Do I say things like “What? You have got to be kidding me,” – or- “That reminds me of the time I…” – or – “You think that’s bad, let me tell you about…”

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

4. Do I roll my eyes, put my head down, shake my head back and forth, throw myself back in my chair, turn away, get up and walk away, show signs of anger or threatening behavior, or otherwise display that I am not paying attention or do not like what the other person is saying?

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

5. Do I fidget until people stop talking and then immediately respond without considering what they’ve said?

1= frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

6. Do I let my mind wander to all the other things on my “to do” list and keep thinking that I just don’t have the time for this?

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

7. Do I wait until the nanosecond when the speaker goes to take a breath to pounce on him or her with my opinions?

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

8. Do I hijack the conversation? For instance by saying something like, “Look we’ve been over this a million times. Your ideas are just not going to work. This is what we are going to do.”

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

9. I reflect the person’s thoughts and feelings back to the person I am listening to.

1 = rarely
2 = sometimes
3 = frequently

10. I ask open-ended questions to encourage the other person to talk.

1 = rarely
2 = sometimes
3 = frequently

 Total Score = ______

The higher the score – the better your listening skills tend to be and the better interrogator interviewer you would be. Note: This is not a scientific test and has not been validated or otherwise vetted. These opinions are those of Dr. O’Toole and do not represent the views of the FBI.

My experience is that the key to successful information gathering is simply listening to what’s being said. Does it make sense? Does it fit? Does it make you ask more questions? Or does what’s being said to you satisfy what you’re after? Another Note: Police interviews/dialogue exchanges are all about getting the truth. Contrary to conspiracy theories, no good cop wants a false confession.

Kill Zoners – Let us know how you scored on the test!

31 thoughts on “Would You Be a Good Police Interrogator?

  1. Ah, the stories you must have, Garry. I had the good fortune to attend a seminar by nationally recognized interrogation expert Paul Bishop (a thriller author in his own right, see, e.g., his novel Lie Catchers). He agrees the best interviewers are listeners…and observers. He has a long list of “tells” that the skilled interviewer should look for. Also, things like he never wore a badge when questioning, because that sets up a barrier. You want to remove barriers. He didn’t like a table between him and the subject. He wanted two chairs, and close contact. “Innocent people get more comfortable with you being close. Guilty people get more defensive.” You have a strategy, but also “a good interrogator is like a QB under center—looking, assessing, maybe calling an audible.”

    I’m a pretty good listener working on becoming a darn good listener.

  2. 25. Is that good enough? I used to be a fairly successful salesman. I feel like I could totally be the “good cop” and act like a buddy, the type of guy you’d wanna share a secret with.

    Great post.

    • 25 is definitely good enough, Philip. As for the good cop/bad cop schtick – occasionally it works, but usually fails miserably. The courts hate it.

  3. Thanks for the information, Garry. Very interesting. It’s tough enough to get a straight answer when people actually want to convey information. I can’t imagine trying to get information when someone doesn’t want to reveal it.

    • “I can’t imagine trying to get information when someone doesn’t want to reveal it.”
      Which is my biggest “concern” in most cozy mysteries. I find it hard to believe people will confess a major crime to the amateur sleuth. Then again, Perry Mason gets confessions in the courtroom all the time.

    • Trying to get information from someone who doesn’t want to reveal it is like pulling teeth, Steve. Either they want the extraction or it ain’t gonna happen.

  4. My score would change depending on the circumstances. During my accident investigation days, everything was very quiet and slow. Open-ended questions with as much time as a witness needed to answer. Sometimes I needed to interrupt, though, to make sure I understood precisely what they meant by certain phrases. That puts me at a score of 27.

    When I was interviewing people for SIX MINUTES TO FREEDOM, the SF guys in particular were resistant to being recorded so the interviews were masked as conversations, with lots of interplay. The occasional “wow!” or “you’re kidding!” amped up their storytelling skills and their willingness to talk in the first place. In that circumstance, my score would be much lower.

    One thing I have learned about myself over the years: I can listen and engage, or I can listen and take notes. I cannot do both at the same time.

    • There’s a fine art to listening, engaging, and notetaking, John. I recorded all interviews so the need for notetaking was minimal – usually only like a name, location, or number was all that needed writing down. When an interviewer focusses on notes, they detach from the conversation.

  5. Great post, Garry. Very helpful in understanding how to portray the approach of a successful police interviewer. Yesterday we watched the first episode of the latest season of “Only Murders in the Building” and the two police interviewing our heroes (talking with each of them individually) were a study in contrasts. Detective Williamson, a series regular, sat and listened while the other detective was a masterclass in being a terrible listener and the classic “bad cop” when it came to an interviewer, making statements, demanding answers, threatening etc.

    It wasn’t police interviewing, but we practiced “active listening” in library land, both with our reference interviews, resolving issues around fines and lost books, and working with “problem” patrons.” The insightful quiz you included above did a fine job of raising one’s awareness on both how good of a listener you are, and how to be a good listener. Good stuff.

    So, it sounds like the so-called “good cop, bad cop” Mutt-and-Jeff approach you see in movies and TV shows, and sometimes in thrillers and mysteries is pretty much pure fiction? The approach you laid out would be a lot more effective.

    How common was it for a suspect to stone wall you and refuse to answer any questions? I’m guessing it was rare.

    Thanks for another informative and thought-provoking post.

    • Good morning, Dale. Some suspects stonewall and just “lawyer up”. There’s nothing a police officer can do about that, and any statement they make after exercising their right to remain silent and have legal representation would be inadmissible as evidence. Having said that, there’s nothing wrong about “going for the throat” and getting as much information as possible. Information is a commodity and it’s collateral for a cop to do what they want with it outside of the courtroom boundaries.

  6. 29. I interview a lot of people for articles so the situation is not adversarial, nor are subjects generally hiding anything. Most people love to talk about themselves.

    My problem may be listening too well b/c often I can’t get them to shut up once they start. The other day, a zoom interview that was supposed to last an hour ended after 2 1/2 and only b/c I had another interview scheduled.

    But, so far, no one’s confessed a murder to me, although they have spilled pretty juicy stories.

    • 29 doesn’t surprise me with you, Debbie. You understand what my old mentor, Detective Sergeant Fred Mahle, taught me – God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason.

  7. Reading through I was thinking about a few things. One is “circumstantial evidence.” On every cop show and many books circumstantial evidence is discounted. In a real courtroom it is the best thing to have. The exact opposite is eyewitness testimony. Eyewitnesses are terrible at details. But on TV, “He did it1” rules.

    I heard a news story that the UK no longer accepts confessions. They simply aren’t reliable enough. Police investigations don’t look to get a confession anymore.

    Guantanamo – We tortured people for information. It was useless. Actually less than useless because it can never be used in any court even if it is/was true. We did get information from detainees. We got it through building trust.

    • Alan, I once heard a judge say in open court, “There’s nothing more unreliable than an eyewitness.” I concur. It’s a crucial element of criminal investigation that eyewitness accounts are not to be taken at face value. They must be corroborated by some independent evidence. As my one-time partner used to say, “If they don’t got photos, they ain’t got nuthin’.”

  8. 22. Your points are all good ones.

    Some subjects are never going to talk, and some subjects will lie about anything and everything when being interviewed by authority figures.

    Your range of subjects varies too. I was watching a documentary and an officer was interviewing a non cooperating witness to a homicide. His responses were :no comment, No commment, no comment. Another recent example was Mike Flynn taking the fifth. All he needed was a pair of Ray Bans and a stogie to look like a member of the Gambinos

    When you think about it, when a defendant takes the fifth, it tells you there’s something there that needs looking into, likewise if he asserts his right to counsel

    Fact is I’m doing an interview in my WIP. It concerns a housekeeper at a motel who was mildly aquainted with the subject and ran various errands for him. She knew he was some sort of fugitive, and she discovered the body.
    Like the child behind the door or who stands unnoticed she’s almost invisible and hears everyything.She keeps a journal.

    Maybe the TKZers can take a whack at that idea so I can see what I’m doing in my naivete,

    • Hi Robert. Something every cop leans early in the game is everyone lies to the police. Complainants lie. Witnesses lie. Suspects lie. Lawyers lie. Other cops lie – especially senior officers in administration. So, the average street cop becomes a walking bullshit detector. The detectives take it a notch higher and are selected for their communication and organizational skills.

  9. I do a lot of investigations in my day job. No, not a cop. I’m a safety guy. I have conducted my investigations in a similar manner. I’ve even spent hundreds of hours in training on interview techniques for witnesses over the past three decades. I’ve also done HR investigations when they need the facts around their terminations with cause.

    When I find cause I love doing terminations. (Not the shoot, shovel, and shut up, but firing people with cause). I have even volunteered to write termination letters on behalf of HR. I get a rush with that closer. I believe seeing people go to jail would be my drug of choice as a cop.

    With that said, I would be a terrible cop. After 25 plus years of doing it, I’m jaded. I’m also a thrill seeker or sorts with that kind of power. And if I were an RCMP officer, I’m sure I would be on The National.

    I’m also aggressive and I think I’d be that guy who’s snapped when faced with the baby killer and I’d kill him before trial.

    If you ever need someone to be “BAD COP” come get me.

    • If they ever bring back capital punishment in Canada, Ben, I’m going to forward your name as the hangman. All kidding aside, becoming jaded is a natural progression as a police officer’s career advances. Rose colored glasses can be a terrible handicap in dealing with reality.

    • Hahaha, Ben! I’ve only done a few termination interviews. The first was a real challenge, a guy with anger issues at work. I set my objective as having the soon-to-be ex-employee say “Thank you,” as he left. He did, bless him.

      Another time, I had a job candidate interview with an engineer who looked a trifle off. I thought, “If I can get him talking, he’ll reveal his problem. ” After a few minutes, he made a negative comment about a previous employer. I said, “But they couldn’t fool you!”

      “No, by ***, they couldn’t fool me!” he snarled, followed by a string of profane, spittle-spewing aspersions that went on and on, revealing (1) that he was, indeed, a nutter, and (2) that my tactic wasn’t as brilliant as I’d thought: once he started, I couldn’t get him to shut up! It took several minutes to get control of the interview again and see him out.

      • There’s nothing more satisfying than saying “you’re fired” when some jackass is caught doing something nasty.

        It’s like picking the rotten apples off the tree.

  10. Great stuff here, Garry!

    The only “interviewer” experience I’ve had was living with three teenagers. Whew! So glad those days are over.

    Reading over your list, I was fairly dismal at interviewing back then, especially the conversation hijacking bit.

    But now? I have some young adult grandchildren who I’m happy to listen to, nod my head, ask a few pertinent questions, then say, “Well, sounds good. Go for it!”

    Then I go home, hold my head, and wonder where this world is going to be in ten years.

    🙂

  11. Fascinating, Garry. I love the fact that “interrogation” has been changed to “interview.” Sign of the times.

    I am by nature a listener. I much prefer to hear what other people are thinking rather than offer my own opinion. Early on in my project management days, I was advised to get full understanding of what someone was telling me by saying, “I think what you’re saying is …” (#9 on your list.) That’s a great way to get the person to be very specific and avoid the kind of ambiguity that can cause problems later on.

    I scored 28.

    • Nice score, Kay. That’s a great tactic to paraphrase a person’s answer and ask if they agree. It really gets at the specific, as you said.

  12. I forgot to mention my score: 24, if anybody is interested. I should mention, I think, that I took two courses in candidate interviewing at Atlantic Richfield. The major take-away was this: suspend judgment. Never judge anything the candidate tells you. Do not reveal any feelings, “not by word or sign.” After he/she leaves, then have at it, but while the interview is happening, just nod and smile or say something like, “Of course,” or “Very, very fine.”

    CANDIDATE: …And can you sign this form for my parole officer?
    INTERVIEWER: Of course. You’re on parole?
    CANDIDATE: Yes. For burglary.
    INTERVIEWER: Very, very fine.

Comments are closed.