Video or audio recordings of interrogations allow any allegations of improper police conduct to be easily verified or refuted. And they spare courts and juries the arduous task of trying to resolve conflicting testimony from police and defendants as to what occurred.
A recording provides a clear record of what questions were asked and what answers were provided. In the case of a video recording, the suspect's physical condition and demeanor during questioning are also visible. A properly recorded and conducted confession is nearly unassailable.
The practice also allows police interviewers to focus on their questions and suspects' answers without taking notes. And if a suspect does not confess, Pennsylvania law still allows incriminating admissions and conflicting statements made during an interrogation to be introduced at trial if the defendant takes the stand.
Recording of interrogations is gaining acceptance in Pennsylvania, and the Pittsburgh Police Department is among those that have instituted the practice. It hasn't spread quickly, though, partly because Pennsylvania's eavesdropping statute doesn't allow recording of a conversation without both parties' consent. Although suspects who agree to an interrogation will usually agree to recording, the consent requirement can impede questioning.
Routine recording also requires changing other old habits. The Philadelphia Police Department, for example, requires officers to take a written statement from a suspect before attempting to record a confession.
