Is abuse during custodial interrogation grounds for suppression?
<p>I assume that a custodial interrogation that involved the use of "torture" would be suppressed by any U.S. court.</p>

<p>But I can't find a law that clearly defines custodial practices that would constitute torture, beyond the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#18_U.S.C._%C2%A7_2340_(the_%22Torture_Act%22)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Torture Act</a>."</p>

<p>In researching this I have found frequent references to "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment." Is there precedent for suppression of interrogation conducted under conditions in which a detainee has been subject to "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment?"</p>

<p>One condition that is enumerated, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#U.S._Army_Field_Manuals" rel="nofollow noreferrer">at least by the DoD</a>, is <em>hypothermia</em>.  Another I imagine to be more common would be <em>sleep deprivation</em>, if for no other reason than that it impairs an individual's ability to assert one's <em>Miranda</em> rights.</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 3501</a> says that a confession is admissible if it is <em>voluntary</em>.  If it was given during an abusive interrogation, that would generally show that it wasn't voluntary.</p>

<p>There is some analysis at <a href="https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/voluntary-confessions.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/voluntary-confessions.html</a> and <a href="https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/compelled-self-incrimination.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/compelled-self-incrimination.html</a>.</p>

<p>Any amount of violence used during the interrogation would generally make the confession inadmissible, whether or not it rose to the level of torture.   Indeed, even if no actual violence is used, but only <em>threats</em> of violence, that would be enough to make the confession inadmissible, according to that article.</p>

<p>Yes, you are right that not every possible instance of abuse is spelled out and that is intentional. If they spelled out what could be abuse in every instance, it would likely leave out things that could count and therefore create loopholes or it would be so long that you could never read it all.</p>

<p>As Nate Eldredge said, in U.S. Federal court, the law he cites does not allow for abuse during an interrogation. However, that law and similar state laws and supreme court rules, come about due to the 8th Amendment.</p>

<p>The 8th Amendment does not only apply to punishments after a conviction, it would apply when you are in custody, which you would be if you are held to be interrogated.</p>

<p>Generally to see if something is abuse when you are in custody, you would look at case law. That is because what is close to the same thing can be found to be abusive in one setting, but not in another. For example, if you subject someone to loud noises at certain times, it can be found to be abuse in most states, while if you where on the battlefield, since you mentioned the DOD, perhaps there are things going on outside beyond your control and you can not stop the loud noises.</p>

united-states criminal-law arrest interrogation miranda-warning