Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception

Law and Law Enforcement

The law itself, and the personnel and processes of law enforcement are among the
most interesting and paradoxical contexts for the use and misuse of deception. On the
one hand, they represent the standards of ethics and morality of our society and the
rules by which we aim to live. And, their goals are to enforce these standards among
our citizens. On the other, they themselves knowingly violate these standards of ethics
and morality. The law itself specifically condones actions of law enforcement that it
specifically forbids among citizens. In turn, law enforcement personnel employ a wide
variety of fundamentally deceptive practices to apprehend those they believe to be
guilty of crimes: many of these crimes, such as fraud or illegal scams of various sorts,
committed through use of the very same types of deception used by law enforcement to
apprehend the perpetrators (such as misrepresenting crucial facts, or even one’s
identity). The fate of the accused is then contested by prosecutors and defense
attorneys. Whether negotiating a plea agreement, arguing trial motions to the judge, or
presenting the case to juries, the attorneys may selectively present evidence (lying by
omission), and knowingly mislead one another, judges, and juries regarding the nature
and import of the evidence: all in an effort to achieve the best legal outcome for the
state or the defendant.
The pervasive deceptive activities sanctioned by the law itself and entailed in the
enforcement of the law raise a number of interesting psychological and ethical issues.
Does the end of “justice” justify the means of deceptive or unethical practices? Are
these practices unethical when serving the legitimate goals of law enforcement? Do
deceptive practices actually serve the goals of truth-finding and justice, or do they
unavoidably corrupt and misdirect them? Does use of deception by attorneys and law
enforcement undermine public trust? Can police officers who routinely lie and deceive to
apprehend criminals draw a bright line of distinction when they testify before juries, or
does perjury seem like another justifiable means to an end? Does the process of
deceiving others inevitably lead to deceiving oneself? Can attorneys maintain an
objective view of the evidence when their goal is to convince others of a biased view:
sometimes one they know to be false (as when a defense attorney knows his client is
actually guilty)? In the end, are those who deceive aware of their deceptions, or have
they convinced themselves of the truth of the lies?
The culture of law enforcement officers provides an interesting context for
examination of these issues. At one level, their training and culture explicitly endorses
lying and deception as a necessary means to achieve their goals of apprehending
suspects and securing evidence to facilitate their conviction. Training concerning how to
perform tasks such as crisis interventions, undercover work or suspect interrogations
not only instructs officers that they can and should lie to suspects and others, but also
provides specific deceptive strategies, along with many concrete examples of individual
lies to tell: many described in formal and publicly available training manuals. These
formalized deceptive strategies are explicitly sanctioned by law, and evolve over time to
ensure their continuing acceptability by the courts.
Moreover, distinct sets of implicit rules about lying tend to be instilled and
normalized within the law enforcement culture, encouraging and sanctioning particular
forms of lying under some circumstances, and rewarding the development of deceptive
Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception

skills and practices. Lying is considered to part of what it takes to “get the job done,”
and it is widely believed that one cannot police effectively without well-developed tools
of deception. Lying and deception is further encouraged by a culture emphasizing strict
control and secrecy, and protecting officers from negative consequences for many
forms of lying.
In contrast, other forms of lying are discouraged and looked down upon: such as
committing perjury or fabricating evidence. Officers are expected—by their own
institutions and by the public—to draw a bright line of distinction between permissible
deceptive practices necessary to enforce the law, apprehend suspects and gather valid
evidence versus impermissible contamination or fabrication in collection of evidence or
presentations of that evidence to others. But it is all too easy for this line to blur, and for
the impermissible forms of deception to be viewed as just another justifiable means to
achieve the goal of convicting a suspect the officer believes to be guilty: and some
officers do cross this line and commit illegal forms of deception.
Many common permissible and impermissible practices can be illustrated
through consideration of several widely discussed deceptive practices of law
enforcement: undercover operations used to gather evidence or apprehend criminal
suspects, snitches used to provide incriminating information against them, interrogation
practices intended to elicit their confessions, and misleading evidence and testimony
offered to secure convictions.

Undercover Operations

Undercover operations represent the most comprehensively deceptive strategies of law

enforcement. Particularly in deep undercover operations, those involved not only lie
about many specific facts and issues, but must fabricate entire identities and personal
histories to gain the confidence of criminal suspects and access to evidence of their
criminal activities. These massive deceptions may be carried out over months or years,
and may entail developing intimate relationships with suspects, and even perpetration of
criminal activities to maintain the charade. Arguably, a particular form of undercover
operation--the “sting”-- could represent the most ethically questionable deceptive law
enforcement technique, in that police target a person they believe to be involved in a
particular type of criminal activity, and pose as either other perpetrators (e.g., drug
wholesalers) or consumers (e.g., drug buyers) to draw the suspect into committing the
crime under circumstances where it will be documented. In essence, police officers
create opportunities for suspects to participate in crimes for which suspects will then be
captured and tried.
Proponents of “sting” operations point to several advantages of the technique
over other methods. First, the sting operation may be cheaper than alternatives such as
full time surveillance (which has the additional disadvantage of legal issue regarding
privacy). More importantly, sting operations can serve multiple deterrent functions.
Individuals likely to have committed crimes had the operation not been implemented are
captured before the crime occurs: and authorities may be able to identify other
individuals likely to commit a crime in the near future. Moreover, “word on the street”
that police traps may be disguised as criminal opportunities can help deter would-be
offenders.
Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception

Opponents of sting operations claim that the method simply leads to the
manufacturing of crimes, and that many who “offended” through such operations may
never have considered committing crimes in their absence. Perhaps more damning is
the argument that when sting operations prevent the perpetration of the crime, they
arguably become exercises of unjustified punishment for unsuspecting victims.

Use of Snitches

A related method to gather evidence, involves the use of informants—often “low-level”

offenders—to obtain incriminating information against other suspects, in exchange for
legal leniency or other benefits to the informants. The informant may be incorporated
into undercover operations, where he can perform deceptive functions similar to those
of the undercover officers; may attempt to elicit incriminating information from suspects
while both are in custody; or may simply provide information already (allegedly) known.
The use of such informants (colloquially known as snitches) has been the source of
controversy among legal circles and the general public. Proponents of the technique
claim that offering leniency to low-level offenders is a justifiable moral compromise
affording the legal system effective means of apprehending higher-level criminals.
Conversely, opponents of snitching deals argue that such deals represent an unjustified
compromise of law enforcement ethics and justice principles, with undesirable effects
outweighing potential benefits. They note that the clandestine and unregulated nature of
snitching deals can lead to instances of unanticipated victimization of innocents,
corruption, and other ethically questionable outcomes. Incentives offered to snitches
can induce them to provide false information, purposely incriminating innocent persons
solely to reap the benefits of the deal. Moreover, leniency offered in such deals can
encourage criminal activity by allowing informants to escape repercussions of their own
criminal activities.

Interrogation Practices

Interrogation strategies, as practiced by American law enforcement, are arguably

second only to undercover operations in deceptiveness. Although interrogators do not
deceive at the level of their identity as law enforcement officers, they do so with virtually
every other representation made during interrogation. The interrogator feigns good will
toward the suspect, indicating that s/he thinks the suspect is a good guy caught in a bad
situation, and stating that s/he would like to help the suspect get the best outcomes.
S/he promotes the illusion that s/he has the authority to affect whether and what
charges are filed against the suspect (which is actually the province of prosecutors).
S/he misrepresents the purpose of the interrogation as an opportunity for the suspect to
help himself by “explaining” his side of the story, rather than as an attempt to secure the
suspect’s conviction. S/he depicts often scant evidence of guilt as overwhelming, often
claiming to have evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, failed polygraph tests, or
eyewitnesses that doesn’t actually exist. And, the overriding deceptive message of the
interrogation is that confession is actually in suspects’ best long term legal interests,
whereas refusal to confess will work against them. While such strategies are effective in
eliciting true confessions, they have also been implicated in the elicitation of a growing
Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception

number of documented false confessions to serious crimes such as murder, rape, and
others.
Modern interrogation strategies were developed not only to deceive the suspects
and induce them to confess against self-interest, but also to mislead the courts. The
importance of full confessions in securing convictions, along with the risk of false
confessions raised by coercive interrogation practices, have led to the establishment of
laws and regulations in the United States to protect suspects from use of physical
violence, overt threats, and false promises of leniency to elicit incriminating admissions.
Interrogators acknowledge that suspects are unlikely to confess unless they believe it is
in their own best interests. Since explicit threats and promises regarding the
consequences of confession are explicitly forbidden, interrogators have adopted
strategies for conveying the incentives for confession without explicitly stating them. The
success of these strategies in deceiving the courts is reflected in widespread refusal of
the courts to recognize the clarity with which the strategies do convey threats and
promises, along with widespread refusal to suppress confessions elicited through their
use: and in interrogators’ simultaneous success in leading suspects to confess by
convincing them it is in their best interest to do so.

Fabrication and Misrepresentation of Evidence

The frustrations and failures of attempts to gather sufficient evidence against suspects
inevitably provides the temptation to take shortcuts or to fill in the gaps through
fabricating evidence. For example, though deceiving suspects in undercover operations
is legally permissible, and arguably ethical, some practices cross the line to intentionally
mislead attorneys, judges and juries who try and judge the suspects. Undercover
officers often surreptitiously record suspects in order to document incriminating activities
and admissions. If they have difficulty getting sufficiently incriminating statements on
tape, they may engage in deceptive practices to nevertheless give the appearance that
suspects have self-incriminated. For example, the officer may talk about a crime that
has taken place or that is being planned as if the suspect is still present when, unknown
to the audience, he has actually left the room or walked out of earshot. The silence
following the agent’s taped statements can be considered “adoptive admissions” of guilt
on the part of “silent” suspects. An agent may talk about picking up some “speakers” (a
term dope dealers sometimes use to refer to drugs) with a suspect that understands the
term to mean audio-speakers. If the suspect agrees to pick them up, observers can later
be misled to assume he knew the term referred to drugs. Additional strategies used by
undercover agents to artificially convey the notion that targets have been involved in
criminal activities include destroying or tampering with tapes (e.g., introducing static to
obscure parts of the discussion inconsistent with suspect guilt), interrupting or speaking
on behalf of suspects, withholding information from suspects that would clarify what was
being talked about (and perhaps lead to suspect denials), and outright scripting
suspects so that the target audience ends up hearing, in sum, a recorded full confession
in suspects’ own words.

Another of the few contexts in which deception is discouraged involves testifying

in court settings. Research suggests, however, that some officers do cross this line.
Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception

The term “testilying” was coined by New York City police officers to refer to “justified”
perjury—ranging from lying about the circumstances surrounding a particular event to
outright planting evidence at crime scenes—in a presumed effort to distinguish the
practice from inexcusable dishonesty. Indeed, many officers who do lie under oath
argue that such “testilying” is justifiable, since it serves a greater good. That is, some
accept testilying as a way to achieve the goals of justice, even if accomplished through
questionable, and perhaps illegitimate, means. Testilying is believed to be most
frequently used to prevent the acquittal of guilty defendants. Indeed, it has been
speculated that one reason officers resort to lying during investigative, pretrial and trial
proceedings, is their widespread belief that they are much more skilled at identifying
suspects’ culpability than judges, juries, and prosecutors. Therefore, it is up to officers
themselves to ensure that guilty suspects are not wrongly released, through false
testimony if necessary. Other personal reasons why officers sometime resort to
testilying are 1) attempts to cover up their own incompetence or participation in
corruption or other illegal activities; 2) monetary gains, such as overtime pay obtained
from the extra time it takes to process arrests and testifying in court; and 3) personal or
departmental goals to increase conviction rates.

In summary, lying and deception among law officers is legally sanctioned and widely
considered to be necessary for effective evidence gathering: though all such deceptive
practices are criticized by some as unnecessary, ineffective, counterproductive and/or
simply unethical-- inevitably leading to inaccuracies, injustices, and even corruption.
Establishing the legal and ethical boundaries of morally-questionable law enforcement
practices is a complex endeavor, as it involves weighing goals of efficiency against
principles of justice.

J. Guillermo Villalobos
University of Nevada, Reno

Michael J. Williams
University of Nevada, Reno

Deborah Davis
University of Nevada, Reno

See Also: Self-Justification; Deception Motives; Justice; Lying: Accusations; Morals and
Ethics; Perjury.

Further Readings

Davis, Deborah. (2010). Lies, Damned Lies, and the Path from Police Interrogation to
Wrongful Conviction. M. H. Gonzales, C. Tavris, & J. Aronson, (Eds.), The scientist and
the humanist: A festschrift in honor of Elliot Aronson (211-247). New York: Psychology
Press.
Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception

Hay, Bruce. Sting Operations, Undercover Agents, and Entrapment. Missouri Law
Review, Vol. 70 (2005).

Hunt, Jennifer and Peter K. Manning. The Social Context of Police Lying. Symbolic
Interaction, Vol. 14 (1991).

Natapoff, Alexandra. Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American

Justice. New York: New York University Press, 2009.

Shuy, Roger W. Creating Language Crimes: How Law Enforcement Uses (and
Misuses) Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.