![Rep. Phil Plummer (R-Dayton) says recording interrogations is an important strategy in investigating serious crimes. [Andy Chow]](https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/69b510e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3264x2448+0+0/resize/840x630!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Flegacy%2Fimages%2Fnews%2Fnpr%2F2019%2F06%2F733810114_1458501694.jpg)
Lawmakers want to require law enforcement to record interrogations with suspects accused of murder and sexual assault. Backers say this could help avoid wrongful convictions and provide support for investigators.
Public defenders say interrogations are intense by nature, but requiring investigators to record their examinations will add more accountability, ensuring detectives don’t “cross the line.”
The bill, HB277, says the recording could be audio or audiovisual. Rep. Phil Plummer (R-Dayton), a former Montgomery County sheriff, required his staff to record all of their interrogations for investigations of major crimes. In such investigations, words matter, says Plummer, a co-sponsor of the bill.
“If we record this we’ve got every word captured, and one or two words can make or break a case,” Plummer says.
Rep. Thomas West (D-Canton) cited the Netflix series “When They See Us, ”about the 1989 Central Park Five case as an example of the need for accountability in interrogations.
Nicole Clum, from the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, says such recordings can become useful in the court process.
“Juries expect to see interrogations recorded, they want to know that the police weren’t being coercive, they want to hear a confession straight from the horse’s mouth," Clum says. "So this bill really benefits law enforcement, it benefits those accused of crimes and it benefits juries so they can actually see what’s happening in those interrogation rooms.”
The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association says it does not have an official stance on the bill yet, but does have concerns.
“A statement obtained by an investigator, if not recorded, becomes a matter of credibility between the accused and the investigator," says Louis Tobin, OPAA executive director. "Judging credibility is a matter for the jury and these issues should be explored at trial by the prosecution and the defense. But the legislation would presume that an unrecorded interrogation is not credible and that it is, in fact, a violation of state law.”
Tobin adds that there are several situations when recording an interrogation may not be practical or possible.
Copyright 2019 The Statehouse News Bureau. To see more, visit The Statehouse News Bureau.