Why is it not the FBI&#39;s policy to electronically record witness interviews?
<p>What I <em>think</em> is the reason is related to Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1001, which makes it a felony for anyone to make a false statement to the FBI. This, in turn, means that if there's no verbatim record the witness actually said, whatever words the agent deigns to write in the 302 (a record created by the agent's notes. Not signed by the witness.) become, in effect, the witness' words. As do the omissions. The witness can never contradict anything that the agent writes (or chooses not to write) in the 302 without facing the threat of felony charges under section 1001.</p>

<p>You are speaking of former policy, which changed. The policy and underlying reasons are discussed <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/dept-of-justice-new-department-policy-concerning-electronic-recording-of-statements/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> and <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/498694-why-the-fbi-doesnt-record-interviews?rl=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. The reasons are practical and not legal, having to do with logistical burden, interference with rapport building, and misinterpretation by juries and judges regarding (im)proper interviewing techniques. But as of July 11, 2014 the presumption is that custodial interviews will be recorded, with articulated exceptions. This is about custodial interviews, so there is no general assumption that <em>all</em> interviews will be recorded (<em>nobody</em> has that requirement, and the number of informal non-custodial interviews carried out by LEOs vastly exceeds the number of custodial interviews).</p>

recording witnesses fbi interrogation crime