On what grounds is it not considered a crime when the police try to intimidate someone into (falsely) telling them what they want to hear?
<p>Clarification: I'm using words like &quot;coercion&quot; somewhat lightly (basically any kind of intimidation, including just verbal), and the emphasis of this question is more on the fact that the officer's goal is to get their subject to perform an act which would ultimately be criminal.</p>
<hr />
<p>In many, many cases, police who question someone (be it an interrogation for a crime, questions at a point of entry, etc.) will try to intimidate them into answering a certain way.  This is particularly true when they are investigating a potential crime, and they will very often try to coerce a confession long before anything has been proven.</p>
<p>The problem with this is that many of the people being questioned are innocent of those crimes.  Or if it's routine, everyday questions about luggage at a point of entry - or anything else - the answer may be A, but the cop will attempt to coerce an answer of B.  (For example, they may ask, &quot;Do you possess any plants which will need to undergo border inspection?&quot; then try to scare you into saying, &quot;Yes.&quot;)</p>
<p>If the cop attempts to coerce an answer that is ultimately incorrect, they are ultimately attempting to coerce the subject into lying to the police.  That is a crime, so why is the officer's behavior not also considered a crime?</p>
<p>There are two things I suspect come into play here:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>(Less meaningful, imo.) The police officer may believe they're coercing the victim into telling the truth.  My problem with this is that, if it isn't the truth, then the cop is obviously getting ahead of the investigation and being preemptive.</p>
</li>
<li><p>(More meaningful, imo.) The subject has a right in the US to end the interrogation immediately.  While this is definitely more substantial than #1, the police officer is still committing an act of coercion to commit a crime, and some innocent people, etc. are still successfully intimidated into a false confession or reply.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>If I had to guess, the answer is ultimately predicated on #2, but I just want to confirm this.</p>
<p><strong>TL;DR</strong></p>
<p>On what grounds is it not a crime for police to coerce people to answer them a given way, when it's not really the truth?  Is this potentially a crime that's gone under the radar, waiting to be more thoroughly tested in the Supreme Court?</p>

<p>Police officers cannot “coerce” you to make a false statement. In most cases there is a right to remain silent. Even if you are legally required to answer certain questions, you cannot be compelled to answer them falsely. However, police do encourage witnesses to answer questions, and what is regarded as encouragement in some jurisdictions might be seen as coercion elsewhere.</p>
<p>So, let’s assume it is a crime to encourage someone to lie to the police. (That isn’t necessarily the case, but suborning perjury is a crime and that involves similar concepts.) To establish guilt, the prosecution would generally need to prove:</p>
<ol>
<li>A false statement was made.</li>
<li>The person who made the statement knew it was false.</li>
<li>The accused did something to encourage the making of the knowingly false statement.</li>
<li>The accused intended their action to encourage the making of the knowingly false statement.</li>
</ol>
<p>If the police officer thinks the statement might be true, or simply doesn’t care, (4) fails. But even if the police officer expects the witness to lie, they should never encourage them to do so (3) – as opposed to encouraging them to answer questions truthfully. If the police officer says that the witness must tell the truth, and the witness affirms that they are doing so, it would be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer encouraged the witness to make a false statement.</p>

<p>Actual coercion, e.g. using a stick, <em>is</em> a crime – assault. <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.070" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is the definition of the crime of coercion in Washington, under RCW 9a.36.070</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he or she
compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has
a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he or
she has a legal right to engage in.</p>
<p>(2) &quot;Threat&quot; as used in this section means: (a) To communicate,
directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against
any person who is present at the time; or (b) Threats as defined in
*<a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.110" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 9A.04.110</a>(27) (a), (b), or (c).</p>
<p>(3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>((27) amended to read (28)).</p>
<p>What you describe is not coercion. If the officer says &quot;confess or I will {beat, imprison, prosecute} you&quot; that would be coercion, and not what you describe (to the extent that you describe interrogations to actually take place)</p>

<p>In many cases such charges are not brought because what the police, officer does is not legally coercion, nor any other crime.</p>
<p>If a police officer beats or other wise physically attacks the person, that would be coercion. If the police officer threatens to arrest or charge the person unless the person gives a particular answer, that would be unlawful, and might be coercion. If the police officer threatens to use official powers assistant the person, or a member of their family or one of their friends unless the person gives a particular answer, that would be unlawful, and might well constitute coercion.</p>
<p>But if the police, officer says something like &quot;are you quite sure? Think very carefully?&quot; or something like &quot;If A or B or C is true our answer should be 'Yes'&quot;, that would not be coercion, nor unlawful.</p>
<p>If the officer attempts to induce the person to tell a lie, that would be unlawful. But if the officer tried to get the person to admit what the officer honestly believes to be the truth, that is a more complex situation, although the use of ma direct threat of force or improper official action is probably still unlawful.</p>
<p>Secondly in at least some cases (possibly many cases) an officer does act improperly, and perhaps criminally. But no one ever reports the matter or attempts to file charges. Therefore nothing is done, even though a conviction might have been obtained if the matter had been prosecuted.</p>
<p>Also note that juries are often inclined to support an officer, and it takes strong evidence of blatant crime to get an officer conviveted of a crime in connection with on-duty conduct. Knowing this, many prosecutors are not incline to proceed with charges except in extreme cases.</p>

united-states police perjury interrogation