1.This Act may be cited as the
Custodial Interrogation Recording
Act
.
2.Congress finds the following:
(1)According to the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, research has
demonstrated that video recording of custodial interrogations furthers three
important civic values: truth-finding, efficient and fair administration of
justice, and protection of constitutional guarantees. See Richard A. Leo,
Police Interrogation and American Justice 296–305 (2008); Thomas P. Sullivan,
Recording Federal Custodial Interviews, 45 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1297
(2008).
(2)Video recording of
the entire process of custodial interrogation has proven to be a major advance
in law enforcement, improving the ability to solve crimes and prove cases while
lowering the overall costs of investigation and litigation.
(3)Video recording of
custodial interrogations promotes truth-finding in several ways, including by
reducing the incentive to fabricate, compensating for faulty or unreliable
recollections of witnesses, deterring problematic interrogation methods,
filtering out weak cases, and enhancing the ability of finders of fact to
assess witness credibility and veracity.
(4)Video recording of
custodial interrogations promotes efficiency in the administration of the
criminal justice system by reducing the number of frivolous suppression
motions, improving the quality of police investigations, improving the quality
of review and case screening by prosecutors, and reducing the likelihood of
hung juries.
(5)Video recording of
custodial interrogations safeguards constitutional rights and values by making
it easier for courts to adjudicate motions to suppress, by making it easier for
prosecutors to preserve and disclose material exculpatory evidence required
under the Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by
making it easier for superiors to train police officers in how to comply with
constitutional mandates and for the press, and by making it easier for the
press, the judiciary, prosecutors, independent watchdog groups, and police
administrators to identify and correct possible misuses of power by law
enforcement.
(6)Video recordings
of custodial interrogations make it easier to identify and avoid biases, which
would otherwise be difficult to detect and correct because such biases are
often unconscious, thus operating outside police awareness.
(7)Video recordings
of custodial interrogations help to improve public confidence in the fairness
and professionalism of policing, which in a democracy not only is a good in
itself but also a proven means of reducing crime and enhancing citizen
cooperation in solving crimes.
(8)Video recording of the entire process of
custodial interrogation is likely to be a major advancement for law
enforcement, improving its ability to prove its cases while lowering overall
costs of investigation and litigation. Such recording will also, however,
improve systemic accuracy, fairness to the accused and the state alike,
protection of constitutional rights, and public confidence in the justice
system.
3.Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711) is amended—
(1)in section
1001(a), by adding at the end the following:
(27)There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part LL such sums as may be necessary for each of the first 5 fiscal
years beginning after the date of the enactment of such
part.
;
and
(2)by adding at the
end the following:
LLCustodial
Interrogation Video Recording Grants
3021.Custodial
Interrogation Video Recording Grants
(a)The Attorney General
shall make grants to States and units of local government to take whatever
steps the Attorney General determines to be necessary to achieve the complete
and accurate recording, by both audio and video means, of every custodial
interrogation occuring within the State or unit of local government.
(b)The portion of
the costs of a program funded by a grant under this section may not exceed 75
percent.
(c)Definition of
custodial interrogationIn
this section, the term custodial interrogation means questioning
or other conduct by a law enforcement officer which is reasonably likely to
elicit an incriminating response from an individual and occurs when reasonable
individuals in the same circumstances would consider themselves in
custody.
.