Experts Fault Police Tactics in Dallies Case

The aggressive interrogation techniques used by Garden Grove detectives investigating the slaying of one of their own officers went too far and may have helped undermine their case, according to some law enforcement officials and legal experts.

The tactics--which included threatening uncooperative witnesses and their family members with police action--are a mainstay of television cop dramas but often prove ineffective in real life, experts said.

The interrogations became a key factor in a preliminary hearing for the man accused of gunning down Garden Grove Police Officer Howard E. Dallies Jr.--a hearing that ended abruptly Wednesday when prosecutors dropped all charges against the defendant, John J.C. Stephens.

The district attorney’s office made the decision two days after an Orange County Superior Court judge ruled that detectives coerced a key witness during interviews and that a second witness lacked credibility.

Garden Grove police defended their handling of the case, the most expensive and complex in the city’s history. Investigators said they needed to lean hard on some witnesses who were criminals and appeared to be withholding information about the killing.

But police and attorneys from outside Orange County described the tactics as at best counterproductive and in some cases improper. In one instance widely questioned by experts, police told a suspect soon after the killing that they would arrest his mother unless he cooperated, court records show.

In another interview, detectives threatened to send a female witness’ children away to Orangewood Children’s Home, which houses abused and neglected kids. Investigators also refused to allow Stephens--then a suspect in the case--an attorney despite his repeated requests for one, according to interview transcripts.

“There’s a perception throughout the country that police always browbeat people and coerce confessions. I don’t think that’s true, but it’s cases like this that feed that perception,” said Fresno police Lt. Duayne Johnson, who has worked for more than a decade as an investigator for Fresno police and the FBI.

Sgt. Gary Haigh, a homicide detective with the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, said such heavy-handed tactics rarely produce effective evidence in court. Uncooperative suspects, he said, are most likely to be swayed by a softer touch.

“You tend to want to build some positive rapport [with witnesses], even when you’re dealing with known criminals,” Haigh said. “If you can develop some rapport and have a conversation where they feel good, they are more apt to tell you things.”

The dismissal of charges against Stephens earlier this week highlights how carefully detectives must tread when trying to pressure

witnesses into cooperating. Striking a suspect or witness is always deemed to be coercive. But verbal intimidation is not as clear cut, and many lawyers and investigators differ on where acceptable interrogation ends and coercion begins.

Dallies was mortally wounded while on routine overnight patrol on March 9, 1993. It took four years of intense investigation until police felt confident enough to arrest Stephens for the murder. On Wednesday, the Buena Park man was released after spending more than two years in county jail awaiting trial.

Given how little evidence the slaying provided, the credibility of statements implicating Stephens as the killer was essential to the case. With no eyewitnesses and no forensic evidence pointing to any individual, detectives leaned on known drug users who hung around local bars and who might have heard something about the killing.

In squad briefings, investigators were encouraged to “come down hard” on people who may have had information, according to court records.

Judge John J. Ryan ruled earlier this week that detectives went beyond acceptable interview practices when they tried to get Patricia McFarland to cooperate. McFarland, who suffers from cerebral palsy and is dyslexic, twice implicated Stephens as the killer in police interviews.

But under oath last week, she insisted that she had fabricated the tale while on drugs because she had felt frightened of police. Raiding McFarland’s home and telling her she could be charged with murder for withholding information was more than enough to “put her over the edge,” Ryan ruled.

Prosecutors dropped charges against Stephens before the judge could rule on whether other interrogations amounted to coercion. But several experts said they believe that detectives pressed too hard during interviews.

“To make the kind of threats that they did is terrible, frankly,” said David Dusenbury, a former deputy chief for the Long Beach Police Department who now works as a police and security consultant.

It might be acceptable to warn witnesses that they could go to jail for giving false statements or covering up for a killer, but making threats against family members is not, said former San Jose Police Chief Joseph D. McNamara, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

“If you give a false statement to police, that’s a crime,” McNamara said. “[But] it would seem to be that threatening his mother would be clearly questionable.”

Alameda County prosecutor Mark Hutchins agreed but said he could understand how detectives might push witnesses too hard when investigating the killing of a fellow officer.

“It’s tough for the cops. They get emotional,” he said. “They want more than anything else in the world to solve the case.”

Garden Grove police officials maintain they never unduly pressured people to provide false statements. Indeed, interview transcripts show that detectives repeatedly insisted that possible witnesses “tell the truth.”

“I think the detectives were aggressive and focused and used some harsh words with people,” said Garden Grove police Capt. Dave Abrecht. “I think it’s something that detectives have to do sometimes to get information.”

Investigators said they turned to more forceful interrogations after discovering that some witnesses lied to them.

Another investigative tactic disputed by some experts is interviewing a suspect in custody after he has demanded an attorney.

Soon after Dallies’ slaying, detectives arrested Stephens on unrelated warrants and interrogated him about the killing. Despite repeatedly requesting his attorney, detectives refused to allow him one, according to the interview transcript.

” . . . We were supposed to give you your lawyer, we were supposed to stop questions a long time ago,” one detective told Stephens at one point during the interrogation, according to the transcript.

The detective and a colleague went on to say they could not use anything Stephens said to prosecute him. But they also told Stephens that his statements could be used against him if he testified in his own defense.

Some investigators contend that statements made after the demand for an attorney can be used in court if the defendant takes the stand and spins a tale that contradicts what he told investigators during the interview.

Lt. Tom Neely, a homicide investigator at the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department, said that such tactics are risky and discouraged at his department. But, he added, it can help in certain situations.

“[The suspect] could make a full confession, and the jury would never hear it,” Neely said, “but then they would know for sure that they had the right guy.”

Robert Pugsley, professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law, disputed that interpretation of the law, arguing that once a suspect asks for an attorney, all questioning must stop.

“It’s just harassment, and it’s psychologically coercive,” Pugsley said of the interview. “He had an absolute right to have an attorney present.”

Haigh, the San Diego detective, agreed.

“You might have one or two more sentences with them to try to persuade them that they don’t need the attorney. But that’s it,” the sergeant said. “They ask for the attorney, they get the attorney.”