Pawtucket Detectives Abuse the Reid Technique During a Rule 5a Initial Appearance Violation
RI Pawtucket Police Department Detective David Silva and Detective Hans Cute abused the Reid Technique and Violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights of Victor Colebut during an incommunicado interrogation for the Sole Purpose of obtaining a statement to use against Mr. Colebut the interrogation also took place during a Rule 5a Initial Appearance Violation.
Many people believe if a person confesses to a crime that they did not commit then they must be guilty. This misconception is based on the fact that all humans believe that we would never confess to a crime they did not commit. It is only when a person in the presence of law enforcement – especially if they are in their own house (police station) – and all alone under their complete power and control, when the person is worn down the mind begins to change its beliefs. The psychological effect plays a significant role in coercing a false statement.
The Court in Chambers v. Florida condemned the police methods as unconstitutional violations of the petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights
The ‘third degree’ shifted from physical to psychological torture methods – and the most commonly taught method of interrogations is the Reid Technique.
In re Chambers: “Third. The scope and operation of the Fourteenth Amendment have been fruitful sources of controversy in our constitutional history. However, in view of its historical Page 309 U. S. 236 setting and the wrongs which called it into being, the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment — just as that, in the Fifth — has led few to doubt that it was intended to guarantee procedural standards adequate and appropriate, then and thereafter, to protect, at all times, people charged with or suspected of crime by those holding positions of power and authority. Tyrannical governments had immemorially utilized dictatorial criminal procedure and punishment to make scapegoats of the weak, or of helpless political, religious, or racial minorities and those who differed, who would not conform and who resisted tyranny.
And a liberty-loving people won the principle that criminal punishments could not be inflicted save for that which proper legislative action had already, by “the law of the land,” forbidden when done. But even more was needed. From the popular hatred and abhorrence of illegal confinement, torture and extortion of confessions of violations of the “law of the land” evolved the fundamental idea that no man’s life, liberty or property be forfeited as criminal punishment for violation of that law until there had been a charge fairly made and fairly tried in a public Page 309 U. S. 237 tribunal free of prejudice, passion, excitement, and tyrannical power. The rack, the thumbscrew, the wheel, solitary confinement, protracted questioning and cross questioning, and other ingenious forms of entrapment of the helpless or unpopular had left their wake of mutilated bodies and shattered minds along the way to the cross, the guillotine, the stake and Page 309 U. S. 238 the hangman’s noose. And they who have suffered most from secret and dictatorial proceedings have almost always been the poor, the ignorant, the numerically weak, the friendless, and the powerless. This requirement — of conforming to fundamental standards of procedure in criminal trials — was made operative against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Where one of several accused had limped into the trial court as a result of admitted physical mistreatment inflicted to obtain confessions upon which a jury had returned a verdict of guilty of murder, this Court recently declared, Brown v. Mississippi, that “It would be difficult to conceive of methods more revolting to the sense of justice than those taken to procure the confessions of these petitioners, and the use of the confessions thus obtained as the basis for conviction and sentence was a clear denial of due process.” (Chambers v Florida)
Visit the YouTube Channel @THEREIDTECHNIQUETIPS for more information on Interrogations – Know Your Rights
The Reid Nine steps of interrogation
The Reid technique’s nine steps of interrogation are as follows:
- Direct confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
- Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
- Try to minimize the frequency of suspect denials.
- At this point the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move toward the acknowledgement of what they did.
- Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
- The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme of the discussion toward offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
- Pose the “alternative question,” giving two choices for what happened—one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option, but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. As stated earlier, there is always a third option that is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
- Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
- Document the suspect’s admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video, or written).