Posted: 7/8/2017 12:39:31 PM EDT
| Although a DOJ rule promulgated in 2014 instituted a presumption that FBI suspect interviews will be audio or video recorded, a Google search indicates that at least as late as 2016 the FBI still limited its recording to hand-written notes (which was its exclusive practice until then and may still be). Why didn't electronic/digital recording become the norm when it became commonly available? |
| I use to be on a Secret Service task force, they never recorded their interviews, it was against policy or something. I always record important interviews. It allows you to focus on the person being interviewed, and what they are saying, body language, versus trying to keep up with note scribbling. |
|
Quoted:
Although a DOJ rule promulgated in 2014 instituted a presumption that FBI suspect interviews will be audio or video recorded, a Google search indicates that at least as late as 2016 the FBI still limited its recording to hand-written notes (which was its exclusive practice until then and may still be). Why didn't electronic/digital recording become the norm when it became commonly available? Because you can not misconstrue or mischaracterize an audio recording to say something that was never said. Also you can edit out your own misdeeds when you type up the only record of the conversation. |
|
Quoted:
so, what will the FBI do if I whip out my own recorder and say, "you don't mind if I record this, do you? Please state your names clearly." "Sure, you can interview my client. With me. And a tape recorder." He said they required two agents and didn't allow recordings. He was never taken up on his offer. This was about 2-3 years ago. I was shocked they'd prefer not to interview someone over being recorded. |
|
Quoted:
I spoke with a lawyer once at a function that did just that. "Sure, you can interview my client. With me. And a tape recorder." He said they required two agents and didn't allow recordings. He was never taken up on his offer. This was about 2-3 years ago. I was shocked they'd prefer not to interview someone over being recorded. Quoted:
Quoted:
so, what will the FBI do if I whip out my own recorder and say, "you don't mind if I record this, do you? Please state your names clearly." "Sure, you can interview my client. With me. And a tape recorder." He said they required two agents and didn't allow recordings. He was never taken up on his offer. This was about 2-3 years ago. I was shocked they'd prefer not to interview someone over being recorded. |
|
Quoted:
"What are you Feebs so afraid of? Why are you afraid of an accurate record of this interview?" I thought it was interesting. Tin foil is obvious, but I think there's something to be said about antiquated procedure as well. |
|
Quoted:
I wish I could tell you more, but that's all I remember from the conversation. Hadn't thought about it for a while but this thread triggered my memory. I thought it was interesting. Tin foil is obvious, but I think there's something to be said about antiquated procedure as well. Quoted:
Quoted:
"What are you Feebs so afraid of? Why are you afraid of an accurate record of this interview?" I thought it was interesting. Tin foil is obvious, but I think there's something to be said about antiquated procedure as well. When a suspect has a lawyer who isn't intimidated, and is being simultaneously ball-breaking AND reasonable, the Feds act like their minds just had a BSOD. 
Feebs: "well, that's just not how we do this!" Me: "Well, that's just how I do this. So, gentlemen, how are we gonna resolve this impasse?" |