The Dark Side Of Police Interrogations
Exploiting Families Of Shooting Victims For Legal Shielding
When tragedy strikes in the form of a police shooting, families typically find themselves subject to another issue: Manipulative interrogations by law enforcement. In far too many cases, police officers take advantage of the families to elicit disparaging information about the deceased for the purpose of lessening civil liability and the possibility of lawsuits.
The little-known methodology is quite straightforward. Officers rush to interrogate families of those killed by police before they learn of the fate of their loved ones. They gather prejudicial information that could potentially be used in court to defend the officers and department.
Bruce Praet, a former police officer and co-founder of the consulting group Lexipol, has been instrumental in training law enforcement on the use of this tactic. In one of his trainings, he notes that officers have “about five, 10, 30 minutes to get out there before word gets back on the street – that bad guy is either in the hospital, dead, jail, whatever.”
This method appears to be common in California and other areas of the country according to a Los Angeles Times report that notes that police departments across the state “have been trained to quickly question family members after a police killing in order to collect information that, among other things, is used to protect the involved officers and their department.”
The report also noted that “Police and prosecutors routinely incorporate the information into disparaging accounts about the people who have been killed that help justify the killings, bolster the department’s defense against civil suits and reduce the amount of money families receive in settlements and jury verdicts.”
Even more disturbing is that the report found 20 instances of the practice in the state since 2008. “Attorneys specializing in police misconduct lawsuits say those cases are just a fraction of what they describe as a routine practice.”
The story of Diana Showman presents a stark example of this method in action. The Los Angeles Times article details how Showman, who suffered from bipolar disorder, called the emergency line in 2014, telling the operator that she “was armed with an Uzi.” She pointed a black cordless drill at the responding officers who shot her after they mistook the tool for a weapon.
Shortly after the tragic incident, two detectives interviewed Showman’s father. They were aware of the woman’s demise, but did not tell the father that she had been killed and allowed him to believe she was recovering at a hospital. The officers solicited information about Diana from the distraught father. After nearly 30 minutes of questioning, the officers finally told the father that his daughter was dead.
When Showman’s parents eventually filed a lawsuit against the police department, the city’s attorneys “made thorough use of the statement her father gave to detectives about his daughter’s history of violent outbursts and suicide attempts” and a report clearing the officer who shot Diana indicated that the department “relied heavily on James Showman’s statements to detectives.”
The Showmans rejected the department’s first offer of a settlement. The department then made a lower offer using James’ statements to the detectives, which the family accepted because they saw no other options. “I will beat myself up for the rest of my life for the amount of information I told them,” the father said during an interview.
Praet’s controversial guidance instructs law enforcement officials to avoid notifying family members of the deceased until they can obtain information that could be useful in the event of a lawsuit or other action against the police department.
He suggests an approach bordering on predatory when dealing with the families of victims: “Before the dust settles, I want you to send in a uniform, a detective, I don’t care, somebody out to their friends and family to find out what they’ve been up to for the last 24 hours,” he said in another training video.
This method often results in family members divulging information under false pretenses, which the department then uses to mitigate liability in legal actions. The objective is to get family members to give up negative information about the deceased to either avoid a lawsuit or lessen the amount the city will have to pay in a settlement. By finding information that can be used by the city’s lawyers to justify the shooting or argue that their death is not worth paying out certain sums of money to the families, they can shield the government from accountability.
In many of these cases, the city dredges up past drug use, mental health issues, and other problems of the deceased to bias the court against the victim in the hopes that the jury will either rule in the government’s favor or order a lower settlement.
The intentional deception employed in these interrogations seriously undermines trust between law enforcement and the public. Michael Gennaco, a consultant on police conduct, noted that “[t]he best approach is the straightforward one” and that “[i]t’s important to be straight with family members who’ve lost someone to police deadly force.”
Weaponizing a family’s shock and vulnerability to protect local governments from accountability is not only inhumane, it ensures that abuses and mishaps will continue to happen. This practice is one that should never be allowed. Police departments should put policies in place preventing law enforcement officials taking advantage of the families of those killed in police shootings.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
I am curious - on what grounds did the Showmans sue the police for the death of their daughter? It is a tragic death, but from your report the police received a call that someone was armed and dangerous. They encountered that person who pointed something at them which they had an instant choice to decide - weapon as described or no? The decision was shoot or be shot. I fail to see how this tragedy should result in any liability for the police officers or the department. Their tactics may be shady, but if they are routinely sued for tragedies such as this one, I can understand their desire to minimize their exposure.
DON’T TALK TO THE POLICE.
Don’t discuss the weather. Don’t say howyadoin’. Don’t say anything.
You have nothing to gain by talking to them and everything to lose.