a. Interview - the questioning of a person who has or is believed to have information of official interest to the investigator. The person interviewed usually gives, in his own manner and words, his account of an incident under investigation. He may also offer information about a person being interviewed.

b. Interrogation - the questioning of a suspect. It could be the questioning of a person who is reluctant to make a full disclosure of information important to an investigation.

c. Admission - a self-incriminating statement that falls short of a confession of guilt.

d. Confession - a complete acknowledgement of guilt.

e. Statement - a written or oral statement of facts obtained from anyone during an investigation.

a. The questioning of criminal suspects, witnesses, victims, and informants makes up a major part of the investigative effort. In some cases physical evidence is entirely absent, and the only approach to a solution of the crime is the interview or interrogation of those who have information. Most of our serious crimes would remain unsolved if it were not for the investigative leads developed and the proof of guilt established through interviews and interrogations.

b. An interview or interrogation is conducted in order to:

a. The Interview and Interrogation Room. The provost marshal should provide a suitable room in which to conduct interviews and interrogations. However, it is the investigator's responsibility to ensure that the room is properly prepared before conducting the interview or interrogation. When it is not possible to use this room, he must ensure that the location chosen and the physical surroundings are the best available. In selecting a room or location for interviews or interrogations, the following considerations should be taken into account:

b. MPI Preparation. Before any meeting or contact with the subject, prepare yourself for the interview or interrogation. Become thoroughly familiar with all the known facts of the incident under investigation. Interview the desk sergeant, other MPs, or anyone else who may have some knowledge of the initial complaint. Any oral, written, or recorded statements made by the subject, victim, witness, or complainant must be read and carefully considered. Visit the scene of the alleged incident and become familiar with the surroundings, even if the investigation does not require crime scene processing. Learn what information has been discussed in front of the suspect. Become familiar with the backgrounds of the persons involved, especially the suspect. Personal background information should include:

c. Become familiar with the case and the relationship of the subject with the case. Also, know the background information relating to all persons involved. This knowledge creates a definite advantage in your favor for the following reasons:

d. Determine in advance what information to develop during questioning. If possible, prepare a list of specific questions to be asked, avoiding questions certain to get straight "yes" or "no" answers. Prepare questions such as: "What did you see?" rather than "Did you see the accident?" Questioning must be conducted on the basis of accurate information. Inadequate or faulty information will not impress the suspect; it will make him more confident of his lying. A suspect who is told that his fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, when at the time he was wearing gloves, will be encouraged to lie.

e. Legal Preparation. Legal preparation on military and civil laws that apply to the offense under investigation is a must before conducting an interview or an interrogation. Knowledge of these laws will enable you to recognize an incriminating statement. It will assist you, also, in evaluating the reliability of any statement made by a witness, victim, complainant, or suspect. Be acquainted with those portions of the Manual for Courts-Martial, 1984, that set forth requirements and tests for the admissibility of evidence. Be familiar with the specific acts which, when established, constitute the elements of proof of the crime alleged and under investigation. Know and avoid the specific actions and conditions that have been held by the courts to constitute duress. Seek constantly to protect the rights of persons involved in a case. Seek also to protect yourself from charges that might arise from your own misconduct. In addition, try to ensure that the information developed is complete and conforms to the general rules relating to the admissibility of evidence. In any case of doubt, contact the staff judge advocate.

a. Prior to questioning any person suspected or accused of any criminal offense, the following question should be asked prior to any rights advisements: "HAVE YOU BEEN ADVISED OF YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND REQUESTED A LAWYER WITHIN THE LAST 30 DAYS?" If the answer is "YES," the interrogator should ask, "WHEN AND WHERE?" and then notify defense counsel. If the answer is "NO," continue on with rights advisement and interrogation if suspect waives his rights.

b. When about to question a person suspected or accused of a criminal offense, ensure that his rights are protected per Article 31, UCMJ and/or the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The suspect or accused is also entitled to counsel, as provided by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

c. Before a statement can be used against an accused in court, it must be shown that the rights of the accused were protected. It must also be shown that the statement(s) were freely and voluntarily given and that the accused was warned of his rights. In addition, it must be shown that he understood the warning and that he waived those rights. To ensure a person's rights are protected, the following procedures will be followed:

a. Victims. A victim is normally interviewed to develop the facts of an incident. This interview may take place in a hospital, at the home of the victim, or at another location not of the investigator's choosing. A victim is not always a reliable or helpful witness. This is sometimes due to fear of some form of revenge by the perpetrator or his associates. It could also be due to a state of mental or physical shock or poor memory. An unreliable or cooperative victim may be afraid of involvement of relatives or friends or of publicity. On the other hand, a victim may be too eager to please. He may attempt, therefore, to cooperate by exaggerating and distorting facts. It may be necessary to interview a victim several times before all facts are correctly disclosed. Occasionally, it is necessary to interrogate a victim. Victims commonly inflate values of property to obtain a larger claim. Also, victims may attempt to hide their involvement in an offense. This is common in rape and homosexual investigations, and in drug-related offenses.

b. Witnesses. A witness is a person, other than a suspect, who has information concerning an incident. A witness may also be the victim, complainant, or accuser who first called the MPs about the incident. A witness must be sought by the investigator when he does not come forward voluntarily to give his knowledge of the incident. A witness may be a person who saw the crime committed. He may be a person who can testify as to the actions and whereabouts of the accused at the time of the crime. He could be a person who knows facts or heard the accused say certain things that would tend to establish a motive for the crime. A witness may be a scientific specialist who examined the physical evidence and can give impartial testimony in court concerning such evidence. Also, the witness may be a person who by his knowledge of certain facts or events can add to the overall knowledge of the case. A witness is usually interviewed, but he may be interrogated when he is suspected of lying or of withholding important information.

c. Informers. The success and efficiency of an investigation may depend, to some extent, on a person who, for one reason or another, furnishes information about a criminal. Informers are protected by the investigator, who often interviews such persons under conditions chosen by the informer. A written statement is generally not taken from an informer because of his reluctance to commit himself on paper or to appear in court.

d. Complainants and Accusers. During an investigation, a person may report or accuse another person. The complainant or accuser is usually interviewed. In some cases, however, it may be desirable to interrogate an accuser or complainant who is suspected of lying or distortion. He might also be suspected of hiding the fact that he provoked the accused, or of attempting to divert suspicion from himself. When a complainant or accuser is suspected of any offense, he must be advised of his rights, as set forth in paragraph 5.

e. Others. Information is often needed that will give a clearer understanding of the motives and actions of persons involved in an incident. In getting such information, the investigator may interview persons who are acquainted with the victim, suspect, witness, or informer. The interview is normally done in the office, home, or place of business of such a person. Rarely does this interview turn into an interrogation.

a. Sensation or Publicity Seekers. Persons in this class are not often met during investigations. Some emotionally disturbed people, however, may appear as witnesses. They may claim to be victims or accomplices of suspects who have received a lot of publicity. Make every effort to handle them in a way that neither the investigation nor the reputation of the Armed Forces suffers.

b. Grudge-Bearing and Lying Witnesses. Sometimes a person with no real knowledge of an incident may give information about, or claim to be a witness to, an incident. They may do so because of prior problems with an accused or suspect, or to settle an old score. A thorough knowledge of the known facts and details of the incident will often help you to see inconsistencies in the story of such a person. The testimony of such witnesses may closely parallel the accounts of the incident that have appeared in the press or that have circulated otherwise. Where the real motives of such a witness are not clear, all possible background information should be developed. Such knowledge will reveal the lies and the reasons for his statements.

c. False Accusers. A false accuser may make a charge that later investigation will reveal as groundless. Sometimes such a charge will persist until a trial is conducted. A false charge is, at times, an exaggerated version of an actual less serious crime. It can also be made when no offense has been committed. False charges occur often in sex cases and are not uncommon in other crimes. A false charge may represent the sincere thinking of the victim, however wrong. Or it may rest on the victim's reaction to previous ill will, suspicion, or jealousy. All of your investigative skills are required in the first interview with an accuser to separate truthful accusations from lies.

a. Perception and Memory. The validity of the information revealed during an interview or an interrogation is influenced by the subject's ability to do three things. He must be able to understand correctly what he saw happen. He must be able to remember that information and to give it correctly to you. A mistake made in recalling a particular incident is often due to:

b. Prejudice. When answering questions, persons may be influenced by one type of prejudice or another. Be alert to this possibility. Attempt to discover the motivation behind such prejudice. A statement influenced by prejudice should be carefully weighed and examined for reliable information helpful to the investigation.

c. Reluctance to Talk. You may deal with a person who is reluctant to give information. You must legally overcome this reluctance in order to secure the needed fact. The most common reasons for reluctance to talk are as follows:

d. Military Police Investigator/Subject Personality Conflicts. The lack of success in an interview or interrogation may be due to a personality conflict between the investigator and the subject. If that is the case, recognize this factor. Before all chances of success are lost, voluntarily withdraw in favor of another MPI. The subject may feel like talking to the new MPI.

e. Refusal to Talk. A known weakness of the interview or interrogation is that no person can be made to talk if he is not willing. A person guilty of a crime may continue to profess his innocence even after he is convicted and serving his sentence. Remember that a victim, complainant, or witness to a crime does not have the same protection under Article 31 and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as an accused, since he is not a suspect. Remind people of this fact. Point out that a person who refuses to cooperate is doing a great disservice to the Army.

a. When too many people are present, the person being interviewed or questioned sometimes doesn't want to tell all that he knows of the incident. Interviewing or questioning one in the presence of many law enforcement personnel has been held by the courts to be suggestive of duress. On the other hand, someone should be there to witness the questioning and the statement(s) made. Someone should be there, also, to protect the investigator against a possible charge of coercion or duress. Not more than two investigators should be present in the interrogation room. When more than two people have an official interest in the interview or questioning, the others may witness the questioning from behind a two-way mirror. There they will be out of sight of the person but can still see and hear everything.

b. Female Subjects. Never endanger an interview or questioning by ignoring this fact: a woman may not want to talk about intimate subjects in the presence of others. There is no legal requirement to have a witness for the questioning of females, however, it is better to have a witness, preferably a female, for your own safeguard against false charges. The use of two way mirrors and concealed microphones (in accordance with AR 381-17) is proper for such cases. The fact that the female believes that she is alone with the investigator may encourage her to talk.

a. Only a few people in the immediate vicinity of a crime can give information that will be of value. Find these individuals and separate those who have valuable information from those who do not. The problem is best solved by the skillful use of the interview.

b. In an interview, the person questioned usually gives his account of the incident in his own words and in his own way.

a. Time of Interview. A person should be interviewed as soon as possible after the incident. This reduces the possibility of his forgetting or being influenced not to talk. Generally, question witnesses, victims, and complainants at their earliest convenience. Allow enough time to conduct a thorough interview; poor scheduling can result in a rushed interview. Important details are then overlooked.

b. Place of Interview. Willing witnesses, excluding those interviewed at the scene, are usually interviewed, where they feel psychologically comfortable. They might be in their homes or offices. It is all right, however, to interview persons in a police setting, if they are not uncomfortable or are not caused undue hardship.

c. With suspects and hostile witnesses not interviewed at the scene, it is best to question in a proper interrogation room. (Such a room is described later in this lesson.) Any other available location where the investigator enjoys the psychological advantage will also do for questioning.

a. Introduce yourself courteously to the person being interviewed. Make certain that he is aware of your identity. Show your credentials if the person has a doubt as to your authority to conduct the investigation.

b. A hasty introduction or an appearance of haste at the beginning of the interview may cause an embarrassing situation. It could make the person think that his presence is of little importance and that the information he has is of little value. A few minutes spent in a proper introduction are not wasted; the introduction gives you time in which to evaluate the person and your approach; the person is given a chance to overcome any nervousness and is usually in a better frame of mind to answer questions.

a. When the introduction is complete, make a general statement about the case without disclosing any exact facts. The statement should be so worded as to create an understanding between you and the person. Such a statement is a good point on which to begin discussion. It also affords you more time to "size up" the interviewee.

b. If the person is a suspect or accused, then ensure that the suspect or accused fully understands his rights as set forth in paragraph 5. Remember, just warning the subject of his rights is not enough; you must ensure that he understands his rights.

a. Complainant. If possible, the complainant should be interviewed first, to determine whether the crime occurred as alleged. When interviewing a complainant, be receptive and sympathetic. Let the complainant know that you recognize the importance of the complaint and intend to take proper action. Be tactful and open-minded toward the person and his complaint, but be equally realistic and careful in developing complete information. Attempt to establish the motive for the complaint. Be alert for any grudge or jealousy on the part of the complainant. Determine the subject's relationship to the person accused and the facts developed.

b. Witnesses. The MPI must often guide the witness to help him recall and relate the facts of an incident. Help the witness realize that he has important and necessary information. Questions should be designed to develop a detailed account of the witness' knowledge. Constantly be aware of the human factors that affect a witness's ability to observe and describe actions, articles, or circumstances related to the commission of a crime.

c. Victims. When interviewing the victim of a crime, consider the victim's emotional and physical state. A state of shock or hysteria may cause the victim to give a hazy, erroneous, or garbled account. Wild and unsupported opinions or conclusions about the circumstances of persons connected with the crime are often included in the victim's account. Keep an open mind. Weigh each part of the victim's story in relation to the physical evidence and the testimony of witnesses. The interview procedure used for a victim closely parallels that used for a complainant. The victim can usually give reliable information about the events leading to the crime. However, his account of the details, and the events immediately following the crime, may be subject to faulty perception resulting from excitement and tension.

a. Most people who are interviewed have no objection to discreet notetaking. Notes, however, should not be taken until the subject has had an opportunity to tell his story completely and to correct any honest mistakes made in the first telling.

b. Some people show annoyance when the investigator diverts his attention from them to the taking of notes. Others are reluctant to talk when they know that what they say is being recorded. When interviewing these persons, do not make notes until just before closing the interview, or just after it, while the details are still fresh in your mind. Exceptions occur when the investigator must make note of such things as addresses, telephone numbers, and detailed descriptions of persons or stolen items.

c. An electronic recording device (tape or wire) is a useful means of preserving the content of an interview. The recordings should be kept in their entirety, together with any stenographic transcripts made from them. A complete chain of custody is maintained for all such items, they may later prove valuable in legal proceedings, if they can be duly identified and authenticated. AR 381-17 must be followed to the letter when recording an interview. When using wire or tape recorders, you must get the consent of the person being interviewed. Preferably you should get it in writing.

a. When the investigator ends his interview, he should show his appreciation for the subject's help. This applies not only to interviewees who have been helpful from the beginning of the interview; it also applies to those who first had to be encouraged and motivated to give information. No promises or hints of confidentiality should be given.

b. The time required in closing the interview may sometimes be used to get more information. A reluctant subject may tend to drop his guard after the questioning has ceased and the investigator has put his notebook away. The person who has withheld important facts during the interview may mention such facts during the period just afterward. By careful handling of the subject, you may get the very facts that had escaped you during the interview.

c. If the person has traveled far to be interviewed, help him to arrange and schedule his travel home, or to secure repayment of funds when authorized. Such action promotes future help.

a. The Interviewee. The mannerisms and emotional state of the person during the interview may provide a clue as to the reliability of his information. If he is hesitant, evasive, or unwilling to give information about details of an incident, this may mean he is not cooperating to the fullest extent. Physical evidence of nervousness, such as constant wetting of the lips, may indicate an attempt at deception. Flushing of, and perspiration on, the face may indicate the seriousness which he attaches to the points being discussed. They may also indicate that he is not giving complete information. Some persons, however, are able to lie without displaying any noticeable outward signs. Moreover, innocent persons sometimes display noticeable signs of extreme nervousness. For these reasons, and for the added reason that you might misinterpret such physical signs, the information given cannot be evaluated conclusively by your evaluation of the interviewee. Therefore, seek and interview persons who have known the interviewee for some time. This will enable you to substantiate or to eliminate inferences gained from signs of emotional disturbance shown during the interview.

b. The Information. The information received during the interview has no real value until it is properly evaluated, and, if possible, checked for accuracy and truthfulness, as follows:

c. Performance of the Interviewer. The MPI who truly wants to improve his ability to interview persons successfully, evaluates himself during and after each interview. He evaluates both his approach and his manner. This procedure is particularly necessary when he has been unsuccessful in getting from the interviewee all the information that he was believed to have.

a. An interrogation is the questioning of a person suspected of having committed an offense; it could be the questioning of a person who is reluctant to make a full disclosure of information of value to an investigation. Interrogation serves to answer the basic questions of an investigation, the who?, what?, where?, when?, why? and how?

b. The purposes of an interrogation are to:

a. Time of Interrogation. A person suspected of a crime should be questioned as soon as possible after the report of the incident. This should be, however, only after the interrogator is prepared and ready. Every minute that passes between the commission of the crime and the apprehension and interrogation of the suspect affects a successful interrogation. Time gives the suspect chances to compose himself, to make up alibis, and to communicate with accomplices. Because the questioning is time-consuming, and cannot be rushed, no time limit should be set. Do not schedule anything else that may interrupt or cut short the questioning. The questioning, however, should never be continued for a length of time that would constitute duress.

b. Place of Interrogation. As previously stated, a criminal, surprised and caught in the act of committing a crime, is not usually interrogated on the spot. Such questioning is normally of little value to establish his involvement in the offense; that is well established by his being caught in the act. Properly handled, however, this interrogation may produce a confession that will clear up other like crimes, such as a series of burglaries. Also, such interrogation may help to identify accomplices. Normally, however, the interrogation is conducted at the MPI office. Material is available for taking notes or for preparing statements, admissions, or confessions. Witnesses are available to guard against possible charges of abuse, duress, or coercion and to witness the statements, admissions, and confessions. At the office or at a regular interrogation facility, you can arrange for privacy during the interrogation. You can control the physical environment and make reasonably certain that you will not be interrupted.

a. The classification of suspects into general groups will help you in deciding on the approach most likely to succeed in getting a suspect to talk.

The accuracy of your efforts to classify a suspect depends upon your ability and experience. It depends also upon the availability and accuracy of information developed about the suspect or the case. An incorrect classification may result in an unsuccessful interrogation. This could happen if the approach based on the original classification is not skillfully and quickly changed before the suspect becomes aware of the error. Suspects are divided into the following groups:

b. An interrogator's success will depend upon his ability to quickly and accurately classify the subject. It will depend also on his ability to select the interrogation technique for the occasion. Should he appeal to the subject's logic? Should he be sympathetic? Should he appeal to the person's pride, or should he shift the blame to someone else? Should he be tough? What terminology should he use? These are but a few of the questions an interrogator will have to ask himself while sizing up the subject and deciding on the techniques to use.

a. Direct Approach. The direct approach is normally used to interrogate a suspect whose guilt is reasonably certain. In using this approach, assume an air of confidence with regard to the guilt of the suspect. With this same air, stress the evidence or testimony that points to his guilt. Try from the beginning to get an admission or confession from the suspect.

b. Indirect Approach. The indirect approach is exploratory in nature. It is used usually when interrogating a suspect whose guilt is uncertain or doubtful. Alibis offered by the suspect should be checked to determine their truthfulness. Facts that are definitely known to you and suggest the suspect's guilt should be used in planning questions to test his reactions and to determine whether he is apt to lie. When evidence is lacking or weak, proceed cautiously. Place the suspect in a position where he will be forced to distort or alter facts that are definitely known to you. The suspect should then be requested to explain satisfactorily any such discrepancy or distortion. At times, imply that much more is actually known. Do so by making statements or by asking questions that lead the suspect to believe that the answers are already known. After this situation has developed, revert to direct questioning to obtain an admission or confession. In the indirect approach, the questioning is designed to develop a detailed account of the suspect's activities before, during, and after the time the offense occurred. The following are examples of questions that can be asked when using the indirect approach:

c. Psychological Technique. It is sometimes useful to focus the thoughts and emotions of the suspect on the moral aspects of the crime. This may be done to make him realize that a wrong has been done. Take great care to ensure that the suspect does not become so emotional as to render any statement made by him inadmissible in court.

d. Other Techniques. At times, the interrogation techniques used must be of a more subtle nature. Use these techniques carefully so that your approach will not be obvious to the suspect. Detailed planning and realism are the requirements for their successful use. Be careful not to endanger the success of any future interrogative effort by telling the suspect just how much, or how little, information there is against him.

a. He should be intelligent and capable of learning rapidly the habits, methods, and procedures of the investigator.

b. He should be well-educated in both foreign and English languages. Also, he should be able to express himself clearly and intelligibly to all persons whom the investigator is likely to question.

c. He should be honest and free from criminal tendencies. If he is a native of that country, he should be free from unfavorable reputation among the local inhabitants.

d. His reputation or standing in the community should be such that he will not be influenced by persons of higher rank and standing. A person's social and educational level is often detected from his speech habits or peculiarities.

e. He should be willing to accept a subordinate role in the actual questioning of persons; i.e., permit the MPI to ask questions and to receive and evaluate the answers.

a. The interpreter must never ask questions of his own. He must never paraphrase (summarize) your questions or the subject's answers.

b. The interpreter must never frighten or scold the subject or engage in any behavior that will lower the prestige of the MPI or badly affect the investigation.

c. The interpreter must never hold back information given by the subject, because it may adversely affect the interpreter or someone known to him.

d. You, in turn, must never bully, criticize, or admonish the interpreter in the presence of the subject. Criticism is made in private to avoid lowering the prestige of the interpreter, and thereby impairing his effectiveness.

a. Prepare in advance, in writing, the questions you intend to ask. The questions should be clear, brief, and the type that will elicit brief, factual answers.

b. The interpreter is provided these questions in advance, so he may, if necessary, research any special vocabulary problems.

c. The interpreter should stand or sit to your side and slightly forward so that he can speak with both you and the subject by just turning his head. He should not be allowed to move about or to do anything that will distract the subject's attention.

d. Address the subject directly, looking him in the eye, in order to hold his attention. The questions should be asked slowly and clearly in clear English. Avoid slang and idiomatic expressions that may confuse the interpreter. If the subject and interpreter begin an extensive conversation or argument, put an immediate stop to it.

e. The interpreter translates your questions into the language of the subject. He should do this promptly in a clear, well-modulated voice, reproducing the tone and emphasis of the investigator.

f. The subject should answer your questions in his native language.

g. The interpreter should repeat the subject's answer in English, in as literal a translation as possible. He should not use such expressions as "He says" or "I believe he is lying." If you want an explanation of an answer that concerns the use or meaning of a word, request it from the interpreter later. If you need a fact cleared up by subject, ask additional questions.

h. Never instruct the interpreter to ask the subject a question. Also, insist the interpreter translate the subject's answer directly and literally. In other words, never turn to the interpreter and say, "Ask him if he knows John Doe," or permit the interpreter to reply, "He says he does." Instead, the question should be put directly to the subject in English, "Do you know John Doe?" and receive the answer through the interpreter as though it were answered in English by the subject, "Yes, I know him."

i. In some cases, you may want to use a stenographer or a recorder. If the stenographer speaks both languages, he should record all the statements made in both languages. If an electronic recording device is available, it should be used wherever possible. Such a device affords a permanent record of the questioning in both languages. Such record is a means of cross-checking the accuracy and faithfulness of the translation.

j. The interpreter should be told to make his translation of long statements at regular and convenient pauses during the subject's statements. The interruptions must come at the end of complete thoughts. This procedure may be hard if the subject is allowed to give long versions of his information. Therefore, questions that require long explanations and invite digressions should be avoided.

a. The heading of each DA Form 2823 is completed by listing the location at which the statement is made, the date and time it was signed, and the name, SSN, grade/rank, organization or address of the maker of the statement.

b. The statement or body of the statement is generally recorded using one of three accepted methods: narrative, question and answer, or a combination.

c. The narrative method allows the interviewee/person giving the statement to record the information in his own words. This is ideal if he can express himself and doesn't compile a mass of irrelevant information. The narrative is used more often with a complainant or witness than with a victim or suspect.

d. In the question and answer method, the investigator/interrogator can limit the information present to that which is pertinent. Two disadvantages of using this method are: it is time-consuming for the investigator/interrogator; it may suppress some valuable information that might have been volunteered otherwise.

e. A combination of the above two methods normally gives the best results. The person being questioned is first allowed to express himself. Then the investigator/interrogator asks for specific information the person omitted. This method or the question and answer method is most often used when taking a statement from an accused or a suspect.

f. The last section of Form 2823 is known as the affidavit. It acknowledges that the statement was given voluntarily and that mistakes have been corrected. It states also that the number of pages contained in the statement have been verified. The investigator then administers an oath to the interviewee by stating, "Do you swear or affirm that the information given by you in this statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, so help you God?" In the event the interviewee objects to the use of God, that word may be deleted from the oath.

g. After the interviewee has answered "yes," the statement is signed by the interviewee, the interviewer and a witness. (If the person interviewed is, or becomes, suspected or accused of the offense, see preparation of the required accompanying DA Form 3881.

h. The statement is written in the first person. In addition to signing the statement, the maker initials the bottom of each page and all corrections. The last sentence of each statement will be "End of Statement."

i. If a mistake is made and noticed before another word is typed, the word should have slash marks over each letter and a space there-after for the interviewee's initials. This way, the wrong word can still be seen and will not cause any doubt when and if the statement is introduced into court. If noticed after completion of the statement, the word is lined out. It is then written properly above the mistake and initialed by the interviewee.

j. DA Form 3881 (Figures 1-3 through 1-6) must be completed prior to taking a statement from a suspect. When this form is completed, it becomes the cover sheet for the written statements (DA Form 2823).

FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY

FIGURE 1-3. DA Form 3881, Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate Signs, Front

FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY

Figure 1-4. DA Form 3881, Reverse

FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY

Figure 1-5. DA Form 3881, Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate, Front.

Figure 1-6. DA Form 3881, Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate, Front

k. DA Form 2823 (Figures 1-7 through 1-9) is used to record statements obtained by investigators from suspects, victims, complainants, and witnesses. This form may also be used by the investigator for giving a separate statement of his activities throughout the investigation (Figure 1-9).