It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Federal Agents to Start Recording Post-Arrest Statements

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:55 AM
I searched but hadn't found this covered. It seems like a pretty serious change in policy. Here is what one site had to say on it...

Effective in July, the Department of Justice will generally require agents to record — in full — statements taken while a person is in custody. Defendants are still better off demanding a lawyer but at least there will be a record of exactly what was said. Recording will help both sides, so long as they play fair: defendants will know where they stand and not be forced to call federal agents liars if there is disagreement over what was said, the government will have an accurate record and not have to defend against a charge that the agents wrote down the statement wrong. Both sides will be able to show the full context of the statement, which will assist judges and juries at reaching fair and accurate verdicts. When agents fail to record, they will have to explain why they did not follow the policy.

Now what is most important about the source there is that the paragraph I quoted also links the original memorandum sent out to the States Attorneys.

Direct Link to D.O.J. Memorandum

Courthouse News had this to say....

Holder said in a statement that the new policy "will help to ensure accountability and promote public confidence in the institutions and processes that guide the nation's law enforcement efforts."

The policy is to take effect on July 11, and will apply to the FBI, the DEA, the ATF and the U.S. Marshals Service.

This all sounds pretty good so far, and Holder's statement almost makes sense. Well, almost. It's the original memo where the problem comes in and there are two areas I sense a problem here. Lets see what everyone here may think.

This is the first clause in the memo which caught my eye: (Please excuse the img format. The PDF wasn't reading as text)

Hey... That last part there is interesting. Covert eh? Isn't this about restoring confidence or something? Well...At least they'll be recording, right? Umm.. Err... Maybe not so much. reading the actual memo sent out to the workers on this, it seems they don't have to let you know if they are recording or not. If they don't really want to record, those are 3 of the 4 reasons they can say 'Nawww... Don't feel like it', by how I read it. That's some very wide latitude those leave. The 4th one is a detainees refusal to be recorded being an exception.

It all strikes me as a story we need to be aware of for policy changes, especially in how cases in the future come up for what this indicates should be there (well, in spirit anyway). I'm assuming of course, no ATS folks would need this knowledge in a practical way (I'd hope not guys!) but things like this are always good to know the details on. They can make a difference at times.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:35 AM
a reply to: Wrabbit2000


You really have to be suspicious of everything because time has proven that these guys cannot be trusted.

Now, can the suspect record the proceedings? I will bet you they can't even if they are recording. All to often it seems that the equipment the Government uses costs a fortune and stops working when things get interesting. "Oh, yes your honor, we lost the whole middle of the interview when the suspect fell of his chair and down some stairs, but it self repaired so we caught the whole confession."

It MUST be, if they can record you, then you can record them. MUST be.


posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:58 AM
It sounds like they can use the recording if it's to their benefit, and claim they didn't record, or national security issues if they did. Only if they get anything incriminating, will a recording will have been done.
It looks more like another tool to help convict whomever they 'want' to convict.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:39 AM
a reply to: nugget1

Yes and with technology these days they may be able to generate words and phrases and then edit.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 06:06 AM
And with creative editing of the recordings more will be sent to the gulags or executed ..
The missing eleven minutes of watergate tapes also come to mind ...

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 09:42 AM
The whole plot is thickening faster these days is it not?
The PTB want absolute control of your mind and body.....
The obvious answer here, is the same as it always was
SAY NOTHING.....except I want my lawyer...loud and clear....
Otherwise simply keep your mouth shut.....that is all....

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 09:57 AM
a reply to: stirling

Best response yet, take that right to remain silent and talk to a lawyer. Remember the training in interviewing and interrogations these guys have and know they will try to trip you up and most likely will do so, better to say nothing at all.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:06 AM
I wonder what's up with this. Everything ... and I mean everything ... used to be recorded, and I retired from the service back in '98. Warning signs to that effect in plain sight at every entrance and posted on the doors and walls of the 'interview' rooms.

It was the phone recordings that played tricks with my mind though. And, yes, the phones were all labeled too. The playback on a phone recording could seamlessly follow the call even if it were transferred to another line. Remember ... only one party need be aware and they're Not obligated to tell You.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:06 AM
I would assume recording is always possible when talking to any police/justice type. Just don't believe it's going to help you some way.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:21 AM
So long as the suspect has already been given their Miranda warning and they are not being coerced into talking, then BIG effing deal.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 12:32 PM
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Wrabbit, what strikes me funny is that it's only a policy change POST-arrest. And it doesn't even deal with the average local or state LEO, it's federal only.

This idiotic policy is cosmetic. How many people are going to end up like Ibragim Todashev, the guy that supposedly knew the Tsarnaev brothers? Todashev never got arrested. He was executed during (arguably) an illegal detention and questioning in his own home.

And as we see, the Judge Dredd death squads are more the capable of killing people PRE-arrest. Forget POST-arrest. People need to survive PRE-arrest before we worry about POST.

Until they address both we are in trouble. Until recording is MANDATORY (PRE- and POST-) for a conviction then we are still up S#!t Creek without a paddle.

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 12:35 AM
Holy cow, I thought they did this already. It seems like such an obvious thing to do that I cannot believe it was not implemented already. One would think this would protect the interests of both the police and the person being questioned, but I suppose if someone were going to use inappropriate tactics they wouldn't want anyone else to know that. I have heard horror stories of how they basically force confessions through various means. You should never talk to police in such a situation without a lawyer.

Why? Because you cannot know if they actually care about the truth. There are some who, if they think you are guilty, whether you are or are not, will use anything and everything against you. They could talk about a "hypothetical" situation and then turn around and use what you say in a hypothetical manner against you. There are tons of things they could do. They could question you for hours and hours, switching out detectives while you get no sleep. Some people apparently don't know that they do not have to talk to these guys.

Instead of being questioned for hours, if you have not been arrested, then leave. Even if you've done nothing wrong. You DO NOT have to prove to them that you did nothing wrong. They have to prove you did something wrong. Why give them anything that could potentially be used against you? Whether you're innocent or guilty. It is a crying shame that your unwillingness to cooperate is taken to mean that you've done something wrong. No, it is just that too many times innocent people have been wronged. In a perfect legal system, sure it would be alright to talk to them if you did nothing wrong...But we do not have such a system.

new topics


log in