For decades, a particular interrogation method, here referred to as “The Technique”, has dominated law enforcement training across the United States. Characterized by its confrontational and guilt-presumptive approach, this method has been widely adopted and adapted by various training providers.

Despite increasing criticism from researchers and legal scholars, The Technique is still being taught to law enforcement officers today. In fact, many modern interrogation courses are simply rebranded versions of the same framework – copied, renamed, and sold by different vendors under the guise of “new” or “advanced” methods. But at their core, these systems continue to rely on the same problematic strategies that have been around for decades.

Understanding The Technique

Developed in the mid-20th century, The Technique was designed to replace physically coercive interrogation methods with psychological strategies. It involves a structured process that begins with a presumption of the suspect’s guilt, followed by tactics aimed at breaking down resistance and eliciting a confession. Proponents of this outdated technique will tell you that they only use it on guilty people and that they first use something called the “Behavioral Analysis Interview” to see if the person is lying. In their mind, the person who is lying is probably guilty, so it then makes sense to use the remainder of the technique on them. However, what they won’t tell you is that the entire Behavioral Analysis Interview procedure is based on nothing more than pseudo-science. Translation: the BAI doesn’t work and can’t accurately tell who is lying or not so the assertion that the technique is only being used on guilty people isn’t true.

A popular interrogation training organization boasts that officials trained in BAI can accurately discriminate between truth-telling and deception 85 percent of the time. (Meissner and Kassin, 2002: 470). However, researchers investigating those claims determined there was no credible empirical evidence to support that claim.
(Vrij, Mann and Fisher, 2006)

“…the classic phys­ical and behavioral lie detection techniques rely on differences in the target’s physical or behavioral responses during “control” questions versus “test” questions of various sorts, or between responses during presumably low stakes small talk or non-accusatory sections of the interrogation and high stakes crime relevant discussions. Presumably, the same target will show greater difference in indicators of stress and nervousness between the two situations when lying in the high stakes discussions. This assumption is flawed, however, in that both guilty and innocent suspects tend to experience more anxiety when responding to significant crime-related questions.”
(Vrij, Fisher, Mann, & Leal, 2010)

Once investigators who are trained in this technique decide the suspect is likely guilty then proceed farther into the technique. These next tactics often include:

• Presenting false evidence
• Minimizing the seriousness of the offense
• Offering moral justifications
• Implying that confession is the quickest or only way out

While these strategies may appear persuasive, they are also coercive, especially when applied to vulnerable individuals.

The Guilt-Presumptive Approach

A fundamental flaw in The Technique is its assumption that the suspect is guilty. This guilt-presumptive stance frames the entire interrogation, influencing the officer’s interpretation of behavior, statements, and silence. Once that bias is in place, everything the suspect says is filtered through a lens of suspicion.

This is not just a theoretical concern. Research consistently shows that when officers begin an interrogation assuming guilt, they’re more likely to use pressure tactics, overlook exculpatory evidence, and misread neutral behavior as deceptive.

This approach is particularly dangerous when used on:

• Juveniles
• People with cognitive or developmental disabilities
• Individuals suffering from trauma or mental illness

Still in Circulation

Despite years of academic criticism and real-world evidence of harm, The Technique and its derivatives are still widely taught across the U.S. Not only is the original version still marketed to law enforcement agencies, but many training vendors have simply copied the method and rebranded it under different names, making it harder to trace its origins.

What’s worse, many officers who receive this training walk away believing that confession equals truth because that’s how the training is structured. Confession is presented as the ultimate goal, and the ends are often seen as justifying the means.

The Consequences: False Confessions and Wrongful Convictions

There is now an overwhelming body of research linking this interrogation style to false confessions and wrongful convictions.

The Innocence Project reports that approximately 25% of DNA exonerations involve a false confession. Many of those confessions were obtained using The Technique or one of its clones.

Take the case of Juan Rivera: despite DNA evidence excluding him, Rivera was convicted based on a confession obtained after hours of pressure using methods that mirror The Technique. He was later exonerated, but not before spending years behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit.

Science-Based Interviewing: A Better Way Forward

The solution isn’t to abandon interrogation, it’s to do it better. Science-based interviewing models like the ORBIT model developed by Laurence and Emily Allison have shown that ethical, non-coercive approaches can lead to more accurate and reliable outcomes.

These methods focus on:

• Information gathering over confession-seeking
• Rapport-building rather than confrontation
• Open-ended questions instead of leading statements
• Avoiding deception and coercion entirely

Unlike The Technique, these methods are grounded in decades
of peer-reviewed research.

Conclusion

The Technique is outdated but it’s far from obsolete. It continues to shape the way thousands of officers are trained each year,
often under new names and flashy branding. But the core remains the same: presume guilt, apply pressure, extract a confession.

If we want a more just system one where the innocent are protected and the guilty are rightly identified we must leave behind these coercive methods and embrace evidence-based, ethical interviewing techniques.

Because in the end, truth isn’t something you pressure out of someone it’s something you uncover through skillful, science-backed dialogue.