ILNews

Court adopts police interrogation rule

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Following the model of more than a dozen other states, the Indiana Supreme Court has added a new Rule of Evidence to require that certain statements be recorded before they can be entered into evidence.

Approved by a three-justice majority, today's six-page order adds Indiana Rule 617 that applies to any statements on or after Jan. 1, 2011.

Noting how electronically recorded interrogations assist courts and can be used as a potent law enforcement tool for guilt or innocence, the rule reads in part, "In a felony criminal prosecution, evidence of a statement made by a person during a Custodial Interrogation in a Place of Detention shall not be admitted against the person unless an Electronic Recording of the statement was made."

The rule specifically mandates that an audio-video recording be made within a jail, law enforcement agency station house, or facility owned and operated by law enforcement.

Seven exemptions are included:

1. Statements made as part of routine processing or booking

2. Statements made when the suspect does not agree to be electronically recorded

3. When there is an equipment malfunction

4. When the interrogation takes place in another jurisdiction

5. When law enforcement officers reasonably believe the crime under investigation isn't a felony

6. The statement made is spontaneous and not in response to a question

7. Substantial exigent circumstances exist which prevent the recording

The rule takes effect in 2011, a delay put in place at Marion County's request, to allow law enforcement agencies there to buy necessary equipment, train officers, and implement the new policies.

Once it takes effect, the court expects the recordings will lead to fewer factual disputes and reduce the number of motions to suppress evidence, as well as possibly lead to more guilty pleas.

"With the foregoing considerations in mind, the Court finds that the interests of justice and sound judicial administration will be served by the adoption of a new Rule of Evidence," the order reads.

Voting against the revision were Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan, who wrote dissenting paragraphs highlighting the Hoosier law enforcement community's integrity and existing practice as reasons not to amend the rule.

"There are states where bad conduct by police or prosecutors has led to repeated injustice in the criminal process," the chief justice wrote. "Indiana has not been such a place. My assessment of the honesty and professionalism of Indiana's public safety officers leads me to conclude that today's action is not warranted."

Justice Sullivan observed that many state police agencies have already taken this initiative on their own, and so it isn't necessary for the court to get involved.

More than 300 comments came into the court's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure earlier this year during a public comment period that ended April 30. Of the total, the court reports that 89 comments came from law enforcement officers, 80 from the general public, 36 from prosecutors, 27 from public defenders, 61 from other attorneys, five from judges, and five from other judicial officers.

Sixteen states, as well as Washington, D.C., currently have statutory requirements or court rules requiring or encouraging the recording of police interrogations to some degree. Legislation has been proposed in several states and is endorsed by the American Bar Association. Wrongful conviction advocates report that about a quarter of the DNA exonerations nationally involve some aspect of innocent defendants making incriminating statements, delivering false confessions or pleading guilty.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT