United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

April 1997 NAVAL CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATIVE

SERVICE

Fraud Interview Policies

Similar to Other Federal

Law Enforcement

Agencies

GAO/NSIAD-97-117

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-276500 

April 7, 1997

The Honorable Strom Thurmond

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ronald Dellums

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Section 1046 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1997 (P.L. 104-201) directed us to review the policies and practices of the

Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) regarding agent interviews of

suspects and witnesses during procurement fraud investigations.

Specifically, this report addresses (1) NCIS policies on interviewing,

including agent conduct and demeanor and the carrying and display of

weapons; (2) controls to deter inappropriate conduct by agents; and

(3) the desirability and feasibility of audio- or videotaping interviews and

making the recording or transcription available to the person interviewed.

Background Under authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, the Defense Criminal

Investigative Service (DCIS) and the military criminal investigative

organization within each of the services investigate alleged procurement

fraud. NCIS has primary responsibility for investigating alleged

procurement fraud affecting the Navy. Within the Department of Justice,

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates fraud. Each of these

investigating agencies provides evidence to support the prosecuting

authorities.

Between January 1989 and July 1996, NCIS agents participated in over

114,000 criminal investigations. In March 1997, 113 NCIS fraud agents were

involved in the investigation of 811 cases for crimes such as antitrust

violations, cost mischarging, product substitution, and computer intrusion.

Although NCIS agents generally investigate procurement fraud cases

independently, investigative jurisdiction in 320 of the 811 cases, or about

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

39 percent, was shared with DCIS, FBI, and other military or civilian criminal

investigative organizations.

Agents interview individuals to obtain evidence in criminal investigations.

An interview is the formal questioning of an individual who either has or is

believed to have information relevant to an investigation. Interviews are

normally conducted with willing witnesses and informants. An

interrogation is a special type of interview that has an added purpose of

securing an admission or confession of guilt regarding the commission or

participation in the crime or obtaining pertinent knowledge regarding the

crime. Interrogations are normally conducted with suspects or unwilling

witnesses. According to NCIS officials, most testimonial evidence in fraud

cases is acquired through interviews; however, policies covering areas

such as agent demeanor and the display of weapons are the same whether

the format of questioning is an interview or interrogation.

Over the years, allegations have been made regarding the use of

inappropriate interview techniques by NCIS agents when questioning

suspects and witnesses. In January 1995, a Department of Defense (DOD)

advisory board, commissioned by the Secretary of Defense to review

criminal investigations within the agency, reported that it had heard

complaints of abusive interview techniques by NCIS agents.1

 In its report,

the advisory board noted that several defense attorneys suggested that

subjects should be provided with additional protection against potential

abuses by requiring that all interviews be videotaped.

Results in Brief According to federal law enforcement experts, Naval Criminal

Investigative Service interview policies are in accordance with generally

accepted federal law enforcement standards and applicable laws. They are

also similar to the Defense Criminal Investigative Service’s and Federal

Bureau of Investigation’s interview policies. Specifically, Naval Criminal

Investigative Service interview policies prohibit the indiscriminate display

of weapons or the use of threats, promises, inducements, or physical or

mental abuse by agents attempting to influence an individual during

interviews.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service has established controls to deter,

detect, and deal with agent misconduct. Naval Criminal Investigative

Service agents are trained in interview policies at their initial training at

1

Report of the Advisory Board on the Investigative Capability of the Department of Defense, Volumes I

and II, January 1995.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and through in-house and

contractor training. Other controls include (1) periodic inspections of

Naval Criminal Investigative Service field offices, (2) internal

investigations of alleged agent misconduct, (3) oversight of cases and

allegations of agent misconduct by the DOD Inspector General, and (4) the

involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s offices in grand jury investigations and

prosecutions.

Furthermore, judicial review of evidence presented also acts as a deterrent

to inappropriate agent conduct since inappropriate or illegal behavior may

result in the evidence obtained not being admissible in court. The DOD

Inspector General and Naval Criminal Investigative Service could identify

only six cases since January 1989 in which misconduct was substantiated,

and none of those cases involved procurement fraud investigations.

Interviews with selected Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the Navy’s General

Counsel, and Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents identified no

additional substantiated cases. In its 1995 report, DOD’s advisory board also

reported no widespread abuse of subjects’ rights by military criminal

investigative organization agents.

Naval Criminal Investigative Service policies do not prohibit audio- or

videotaping of interviews or distributing the written or taped results to the

interviewee. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service does not routinely

tape interviews. In 1996, Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents

videotaped 79 interviews, 23 of which were interrogations. About

65 percent of the tapings involved child abuse cases. Officials from the

Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation stated that their agencies also do not routinely tape

interviews.

Officials from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Defense

Criminal Investigative Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and

selected Assistant U.S. Attorneys did not support the idea of routinely

taping interviews. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service considers

routine taping of interviews to be unjustified, given the equipment and

transcription costs and the large volume of interviews associated with

procurement fraud investigations. DOD and Department of Justice officials

noted that routine audio- or videotaping would not improve the quality of

the investigation or court proceedings. The DOD advisory board agreed that

the routine taping of interviews was unnecessary, given the lack of any

evidence supporting a widespread abuse of subjects’ rights by agents from

military criminal investigative organizations.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

NCIS Interview

Policies Are

Consistent With Those

of Other Federal Law

Enforcement

Agencies

NCIS interview policies are consistent with those of both DCIS and FBI.

Generally, policies of all three agencies seek to ensure that interviews of

witnesses and suspects are done in a professional manner without the use

of duress, force, and physical or mental abuse. More specifically, these

policies prohibit agents from making promises or threats to gain

cooperation; using deceit, which courts could view as overcoming an

interviewee’s free will; or indiscriminately displaying weapons. A detailed

comparison of the policies is in appendix I.

To ensure that constitutional rights are not violated, NCIS, DCIS, and FBI

policies elaborate on the rights of individuals as witnesses and suspects

and provide guidance and direction to agents. For example, NCIS policies

emphasize that both military and civilian suspects must be informed that

they have a right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney and that

any statement made may be used against them.2

 In addition, NCIS policies

address an individual’s right to have counsel present and to terminate the

interview at any time.

Under 10 U.S.C. 1585 and DOD Directive 5210.56, civilian officers and DOD

employees may carry firearms while on assigned investigative duties. NCIS

and DCIS policies authorize agents, unless otherwise prohibited, to carry

firearms when conducting criminal investigations. FBI policies also require

agents to be armed when on official duty.

NCIS, DCIS, and FBI policies do not specifically prohibit carrying firearms

during interviews. NCIS agents told us that they usually carry weapons

during interviews because of the organization’s policy requiring that

firearms be carried when conducting criminal investigations. However,

NCIS policy states that agents should avoid any unnecessary reference to

the fact that they are carrying a firearm. In March 1996 correspondence to

all NCIS agents, NCIS Headquarters noted that references to the carrying of a

firearm include not only verbal, but also physical references, including

display of the firearm. DCIS and FBI policies also prohibit the careless

display of firearms in public. NCIS policy states that, unless unusual

conditions prevail, an agent should not be armed during an interrogation

and that the presence of two agents is preferable.

NCIS fraud agents told us that, unlike witness interviews, which are

typically held at a home or place of employment, formal interrogations of

2

Article 31 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 831) requires that, before any

questioning, a warning be given to military personnel suspected of an offense. According to Miranda v.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), such warnings must be given to civilian personnel only when they are in

custody or when various other conditions exist, such as probable cause to arrest the individual.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

suspects in general crime cases are usually held in a controlled

environment in an NCIS field office or a custodial environment, such as a

jail. Procurement fraud investigations are usually very long, the target of

the investigation is known early in the investigation and has normally

obtained legal counsel, and an Assistant U.S. Attorney communicates

directly with the suspect’s counsel. Interrogations in procurement fraud

cases are rare due to the nature of the investigation.

NCIS, DCIS, and FBI policies also address agent ethics, conduct, and

demeanor during interviews. For example, NCIS policy states that

interviews should be conducted in a business-like manner. DCIS policy

likewise notes that, when conducting an interview, the agent should

maintain a professional demeanor at all times and protect the rights of

persons involved in a case, as well as protect himself or herself from

allegations of misconduct. The FBI has similar policies regarding agent

conduct and demeanor during interviews.

Controls Are in Place

to Deter Inappropriate

NCIS Agent Behavior

NCIS requires an investigation of allegations of agent misconduct. Between

January 1989 and July 1996, the NCIS Office of Inspections investigated 304

allegations against agents. However, only 10 cases involved agent conduct

during the interview process, and none involved cases of procurement

fraud. Corrective actions, ranging from required counseling to job

termination, were taken against NCIS agents in the six cases that were

substantiated.

DOD and NCIS have also established controls to protect individual rights and

act as deterrents to inappropriate agent conduct during interviews. These

controls include basic and continued agent training; a field office

inspection program; and DOD Inspector General oversight of NCIS

investigations, including alleged misconduct by agents. The judicial review

inherent in the legal process also acts as a deterrent to inappropriate agent

behavior.

Entry-Level and

Subsequent Agent Training

NCIS agents receive considerable training on interview techniques and

appropriate interview behavior. At the basic agent course given at the

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, NCIS agents receive 18 hours of

instruction concerning interviewing techniques. During their first 

24 months with the agency, agents are exposed to a wide range of general

crime investigations as they work with and are evaluated by more

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

experienced agents. After the first 24-month period, selected agents are

given the opportunity to specialize in procurement fraud investigations.

Additional procurement fraud-specific training, both internal and external,

and additional interview training is given throughout an agent’s career.

The internal and external training is supplemented by correspondence

issued periodically to agents on various subjects, including interviewing

techniques, updates on policy or procedural changes as a result of court

cases, or lessons learned from completed investigations. The 23 dedicated

fraud agents we interviewed at NCIS field offices in Los Angeles and

Washington, D.C., had been with NCIS for an average of 12 years and had

worked in the fraud area for an average of 6-1/2 years.

Oversight Controls NCIS conducts regular operational inspections of headquarters and field

locations. Two objectives of the inspections are to assess compliance with

established policies and procedures and evaluate anomalies that prevent

or inhibit compliance. NCIS guidelines require that these inspections

include interviews with all agents and supervisors and a review of all

ongoing case files and correspondence. In addition, inspections may

include interviews with selected Assistant U.S. Attorneys, military

prosecutors, and managers and agents of other federal criminal

investigative agencies with whom NCIS agents work. Within 45 days of

receipt of the inspection report, the special agent-in-charge of the field

location is to report on actions taken, in progress, or proposed to correct

all recommendations made during the inspection. Between January 1992

and December 1996, NCIS conducted 45 of these inspections. Our review of

inspection reports for all 11 inspections conducted during the 3-year

period ending December 1996, found no indications of problems with

agent conduct regarding interviews.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 gives the DOD Inspector General the

responsibility for oversight of investigations performed by the military

criminal investigative organizations, including NCIS. During the last 4 years,

the DOD Inspector General completed oversight reviews of 29 NCIS cases

involving allegations of misconduct against 11 NCIS agents. The Inspector

General determined that none of these allegations were substantiated. In

April 1996, the Secretary of Defense requested that the DOD Inspector

General look into allegations of NCIS agent misconduct during a 4-year

procurement fraud investigation that ended in acquittal of the two

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

defendants in early 1995.3 At the time of our review, the inquiry into these

allegations had not been completed.

Judicial Review U.S. Attorneys and other prosecuting authorities rely on the results of NCIS

investigations to be upheld in the courts. Under rights afforded under the

fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 31 of the Uniform

Code of Military Justice, evidence acquired in violation of the rights of the

accused can be inadmissible. Defendants and their attorneys have the right

to petition the courts to suppress or exclude any evidence not legally

obtained. In addition, civilian witnesses and suspects can bring civil suits

against agents if they believe their rights have been violated or laws have

been broken.

According to the Navy’s General Counsel, once a case is accepted for

prosecution in federal court, the Assistant U.S. Attorney assumes

responsibility for the investigation and determines the need for further

investigation, the witnesses who will be interviewed, and the timetable for

referring the case to the grand jury for indictment. Thus, the Assistant U.S.

Attorney closely monitors the information obtained for its admissibility.

We interviewed nine Assistant U.S. Attorneys, all of whom had many years

of experience in working with NCIS agents. They characterized the NCIS

agents as professional and could not recall any instances in which

evidence was suppressed or cases were negatively impacted as a result of

misconduct by NCIS agents during interviews. Some of the attorneys said

they had attended interviews with NCIS fraud agents and observed nothing

that was out of line.

Little Support Exists

for Routine Recording

of Interviews

NCIS, DCIS, and FBI policies permit audio or video recordings of witness or

suspect interviews in significant or controversial cases. However, little

support exists for routine taping of interviews, except in particular kinds

of cases. In fiscal year 1996, NCIS agents videotaped 56 interviews and 

23 interrogations, 51 (or 65 percent) of which involved child abuse cases.

Most of the remaining videotapings involved cases of assaults, homicides,

and rapes. NCIS fraud agents said that they audiotape very few interviews.

Neither DOD nor the Department of Justice favor routinely audio- or

videotaping interviews. Both agencies believe that such a practice would

not improve the quality of investigations or court proceedings and that the

resources necessary to institute such a practice could be better used

3

United States of America v. Ralph Bernard and William Ayers, CR No. F-93-5100-REC.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

elsewhere. In its 1995 report, DOD’s advisory board recognized that routine

videotaping of interviews is a topic of debate within the law enforcement

community. However, the board concluded that videotaping was

unnecessary in all cases since its study found no widespread abuse of

subjects’ rights, but it might be advisable under some circumstances.

The Navy’s General Counsel, NCIS agents, and the Assistant U.S. Attorneys

we spoke with expressed concern regarding the routine recording of

interviews. They consider routine recording to be unnecessary because

the courts do not require it; the practice would take time better used for

more productive activities; and, given the large volume of cases, such

recordings would be cost-prohibitive and add little value to the process.

The Assistant U.S. Attorneys stressed that grand jury hearings and court

proceedings are the most appropriate places to obtain testimonial

evidence, since witnesses are under oath.

NCIS agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorneys we spoke with favored the

current NCIS policy of interviews being taped only when a specific reason

exists for doing so. The attorneys favored recording interviews of small

children in child abuse cases to preclude multiple interviews and possibly

the need for the children to appear in court. The agents and attorneys also

favored recording witnesses who were likely to be unavailable during

court proceedings and those that might be expected to change their story.

Officials told us that an NCIS pilot test of videotaping all interviews in the

early 1970s did not support routine use because (1) the agents found that

they were devoting disproportionate time and energy to the care of

equipment rather than gathering facts; (2) the number and breadth of

interviews declined, as did the overall quality of investigations; and

(3) investigators’ productivity decreased due to their inability to conduct a

sufficient number of in-depth interviews.

NCIS had not computed the additional cost of taping all interviews.

However, the Navy’s General Counsel noted that the expense of

equipment, tapes, transcription, and duplication would be extremely high

and could only be justified if no safeguards were already built into the

legal system. As an example of the potential transcription cost that could

be incurred, we were told that, in one case that was recorded, the

interview lasted about 3 hours, filled 4 microcassettes, and ended up being

127 single-spaced typed pages. Information provided by the NCIS Los

Angeles field office, one of the larger offices for procurement fraud cases,

showed that about 7,600 interviews had been completed for the 117 cases

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

assigned as of January 1997, which translates to an average of about 

65 interviews per case. According to officials of the NCIS Washington, D.C.,

field office, 16 major procurement fraud cases that were essentially

completed and awaiting some type of disposition had required 

628 interviews—an average of about 39 interviews per case. NCIS closed 

533 procurement fraud cases in fiscal year 1995 and 534 in fiscal year 1996.

A 1990 study commissioned by the Department of Justice sought to

determine the use of audio- and videotaping of interrogations by police

and sheriff departments nationwide.4

 The study concluded that

videotaping was a useful tool and that one-third of the departments

serving populations of 50,000 or more videotaped suspect interrogations

and confessions in cases involving violent crime. The benefits claimed by

the departments that taped interrogations and confessions included

(1) better interrogations because agents prepared more extensively

beforehand, (2) easier establishment of guilt or innocence by prosecutors,

and (3) increased protection of subjects’ rights against police misconduct.

Local prosecutors tended to favor videotaping, but defense attorneys had

mixed feelings.

NCIS has no written policy that specifically addresses whether recordings

or written transcriptions of interviews should be made available on

demand to the subject or witness. However, NCIS, DCIS, and FBI policies

regarding witness statements and confessions do not prohibit copies from

being given to the individual making the statement. Also, a 1993 NCIS

memorandum said that all witness statements must be provided to the

defense counsel and that quotes from a witness are to be considered

witness statements.

The Assistant U.S. Attorneys we spoke with and NCIS officials believe that

written transcripts of audio or video recordings, especially those taken

during the early stages of an investigation, would not necessarily reflect all

the known facts and might be misleading and subject to inappropriate use.

Currently, interview writeups are not provided to witnesses or suspects

for their review, since they are considered a summary of the interview

results from the agent’s perspective. According to the Navy’s General

Counsel, much of the information in interview writeups is likely to be

irrelevant to the case after the issues are narrowed. This official also said

that the potential increase in the accuracy of individual interviews would

4

National Institute of Justice, Videotaping Interrogations and Confessions, Research in Brief,

March 1993.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

not contribute as much to the total accuracy of an investigation as

verifying or disproving the information provided in initial interviews.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

DOD and the Department of Justice reviewed a draft of this report. The

Department of Justice provided informal comments, which we

incorporated as appropriate. DOD concurred with our findings.

Scope and

Methodology

We interviewed officials responsible for fraud investigations at NCIS, DCIS,

and FBI headquarters to identify policies and procedures relating to

interviewing suspects and witnesses. We focused on the policies and

procedures concerning agent conduct and demeanor, the carrying and

display of weapons during interviews, and use of audio- and videotaping.

To document actual NCIS interview practices, we interviewed fraud case

supervisors and agents at the two NCIS field offices responsible for the

highest number of closed procurement fraud investigations in fiscal 

years 1995 and 1996—Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

To determine whether NCIS policies are in line with generally accepted

federal law enforcement standards, we compared NCIS interview policies,

especially with regard to agent conduct and demeanor and the carrying

and display of weapons, with those of DCIS and FBI—two of the larger

federal law enforcement agencies involved in procurement fraud

investigations. We also reviewed the Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center’s and NCIS internal training curriculum on interviews. In addition,

we reviewed agent training records and discussed interview training with

instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and NCIS fraud

supervisors and agents.

To address agent adherence to guidance and identify controls in place to

deter inappropriate agent conduct and demeanor during interviews, we

interviewed NCIS headquarters officials and the Navy’s General Counsel.

Through discussions and document reviews, we compared these controls

with those of DCIS and FBI. We reviewed cases of alleged agent misconduct

investigated internally by NCIS’ Office of Inspections and externally by the

DOD Inspector General. We also reviewed and documented the results of

the 11 operational inspections of NCIS field offices conducted since

January 1994. In addition, we reviewed summaries of all NCIS procurement

fraud cases closed during fiscal years 1995 and 1996.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

Regarding oversight of NCIS, we interviewed DOD Inspector General

officials responsible for the oversight of NCIS investigative activities and

examined cases of alleged NCIS agent misconduct that received oversight

by the DOD Inspector General. We also reviewed documents regarding

Navy policies and interviewed the Navy’s General Counsel and the Navy’s

Principal Deputy General Counsel. The Assistant U.S. Attorneys we spoke

with provided us with insight regarding the adequacy of policies and laws

dealing with subject and witness interviews and the performance of NCIS

agent interviewing practices, especially with regard to impact on the

prosecution of procurement fraud cases.

We discussed with NCIS and DCIS managers, NCIS agents, and Assistant U.S.

Attorneys, the use of audio and video equipment to tape interviews and the

desirability and feasibility of providing the transcripts to witnesses and

subjects. We obtained the official positions of the Department of Justice

and NCIS regarding these issues. We identified two studies that addressed

using audio- and videotaping for recording interviews and discussed these

issues with the studies’ authors. We also discussed these issues with

homicide detectives from one city police department that uses video

equipment in interrogations. In addition, we discussed with appropriate

DOD and Department of Justice officials any legal and practical

ramifications of interviews being taped and transcriptions being provided

to witnesses and suspects.

We performed our work from July 1996 to March 1997 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional

committees; the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy; the General Counsel

of the Navy; the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; and

the Attorney General. Copies will also be made available to others on

request.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
B-276500 

Please contact me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are William E.

Beusse, Hugh E. Brady, Kenneth Feng, Mark Speight, and Harry Taylor.

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations and

 Capabilities Issues

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Appendix I 

NCIS, DCIS, and FBI Interview and

Interrogation Policies

Policy area NCIS DCIS FBI

Carrying firearms while on assigned

investigative duties.

Agents are required to carry

firearms while on assigned

investigative duties.

Agents must carry firearms

when conducting criminal

investigations, except where

prohibited or when carrying a

firearm is inappropriate.

Agents must be armed when

on official duty, unless good

judgment dictates otherwise.

They are authorized to be

armed anytime.

Displaying weapons during an

interview or interrogation.

Any unnecessary reference to

the fact that an agent has a

firearm on his or her person

should be avoided. An agent

should not be armed during an

interrogation unless unusual

conditions prevail. It is better

to have two agents present

than to be armed. Normally,

agents may be armed during

interviews because the policy

requiring them to be armed

while on investigative duties

prevails.

Area is not specifically

addressed, but unnecessary

display of firearms, which may

heighten the sensitivity of

non-law enforcement

personnel, is prohibited. In

addition, careless display of

firearms in public is prohibited.

Area is not specifically

addressed, but unnecessary

display of weapons in public is

prohibited. Good judgment

must be exercised in all

situations.

Ethics, conduct, and demeanor of

agents.

(1) Warning of individual rights Military suspects must not be

interrogated without having

first been given the prescribed

warning. For civilian suspects,

Miranda warnings are

applicable in custodial

situations, and informing

individuals of their right to

terminate the interview at any

time is required.

In addition to the obligation to

give the suspect the required

warnings, agents are required

to be familiar with civil and

criminal laws and the Uniform

Code of Military Justice so they

can recognize an incriminating

statement.

In addition to the obligation to

give the suspect the required

warnings, the policies state

that the suspect must be

advised of the names and

official identities of the

interviewing agents and the

nature of the inquiry. It is

desirable that the suspects

acknowledgement of the

warnings be obtained in

writing.

(2) Making promises and threats Agents do not have the

authority to make any promises

or suggestions of leniency or

more severe action to induce a

suspect to make a statement.

Agents must refrain from

making or implying promises

of benefits or rewards or

threats of punishments to

unlawfully influence the

suspect.

No attempt is to be made to

obtain a statement by force,

threats, or promises. Whether

a suspect will cooperate is left

entirely to the individual. The

policies take into account that

the court will decide whether

the interrogation practices

overpowered the accused’s

ability of self-determination.

(continued)

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Appendix I 

NCIS, DCIS, and FBI Interview and

Interrogation Policies

Policy area NCIS DCIS FBI

(3) Lying or deceit by agent Although tricks or other tactics

may not be used to prevent a

suspect from exercising

constitutional rights, once a

suspect makes a valid waiver

of rights, deceptions are

allowable as long as they are

not used to obtain an untrue

confession.

Playing one suspect against

another is an allowable

interrogation technique.

However, agents must ensure

that information developed

conforms to rules regarding

admissibility of evidence and

that the rights of persons

involved in a case are

protected.

The presence of trickery, ruse,

or deception will not

necessarily make a statement

involuntary. The courts

consider a number of factors in

making this determination,

including whether the

statement resulted from a free

and unconstrained choice or

from interrogation practices

that overpowered the

individual’s ability of

self-determination.

(4) Professional demeanor Interrogations should be

conducted in a business-like

and humane manner. Legal

restrictions are based on the

premise that a person will

make false statements to stop

any physical or mental

discomfort.

Agents should be friendly and

business-like and maintain a

professional demeanor at all

times. Agents should also be

receptive and sympathetic.

Policies prohibit any tactics

that may be considered

coercive by courts, stressing

that tactics that overpower a

suspect’s ability of

self-determination should not

be used.

Audio and video recording of

interrogations and interviews

Recommended for interviews

considered to be potentially

significant or controversial but

only with the knowledge and

concurrence of the interviewee.

Recommended for compelling

situations with approval from

the interviewee, the head of

the DCIS field office, and

prosecutor.

Authorized on a limited,

selective basis with approval

of the special agent-in-charge

and consent of the interviewee.

In addition, recording

equipment must be in plain

view of the interviewee, tapes

must not be edited or altered,

and the chain of custody must

be ensured.

Providing copies of witness

statement or transcriptions to

witnesses or defense attorneys.

No policy. When the individual making a

statement asks for a copy, one

will be provided. However,

prior approval for doing so

must be obtained from the

cognizant U.S. Attorney or

military Staff Judge Advocate,

as appropriate.

Agents should not volunteer to

furnish a copy of a confession

or signed or unsigned

statement to the subjects or

their attorneys. However, if the

confession or statement is

requested and certain

conditions are met, it should

be provided.

Providing copies of video or audio

recordings to suspects, witnesses,

or defense attorneys.

No policy. A determination is

made on a case-by-case basis

by the U.S. Attorney.

No policy. A determination is

made on a case-by-case basis

by the U.S. Attorney.

No policy. A determination is

made on a case-by-case basis

by the U.S. Attorney.

(703162) Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-97-117 Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100