CFI Exam Prep

• 1) Lack of control over what is going on around the suspect
• 2) Suspect may be in supportive environment
• 3) Difficult to establish rapport over the phone with an Individual they have never met.
• 4) Development of additional Admissions may be difficult to obtain.
• 5) Being limited in their interpretation of the Suspects behaviour.

• 1) Perception that if the issue was so serious, the Interviewer would have come in person.
• 2) A more experienced Interviewer cna be assigned to deal with cases he is not geopgraphically in a position to resolve.
• 3) The perception of intimacy - over the phone allows that voice to be much closer than it would face to face. The intimacy can be increased by moving from speakerphone to picking up the handset as the conversation continues.
• 4) When talking on the phone, most people actually move into a more submissive posture.
• 5) Limited legal liability regarding whether or not the individual was restrained or in custody.
• 6) Savings on travel time and expenses.

• 1) When an Individual is "caught in the act".
• 2) When the case is smaller and less complex
• 3) To conduct fact gathering interviews with witnesses.

Using question that require a short reposnse from the Suspect helps the Interrorgator monitor the individuals attention to what is being said.

The Interrorgators room setting should be quiet and devoid of any unecessary distractions.

They should be prepped in the same manner as one would for a face-to-face interview/interrorgation.

The first admission is generally going to occur slightly earlier than it would in a face-to-face interview/interorrgation. Instead of between 15-45 minutes, it is most likely to occur between 7 & 10 minutes. This is because taking on the phone is something that most people are quite comfortable doing, even with strangers.

The same strategies used to develop an admission face-to-face are used, however it is more difficult to develop an admission over the phone than in person; more so if the Interrorgator elected to use a direct accusation focusing on what specifically was known.