What happens when police lie? Nothing..
One of the many things people have difficulty understanding is that police officers can lie with almost complete immunity. They can do whatever it takes to obtain a confession, or get evidence. I’m fairly sure that it’s something taught in training. One of the most common techniques where there are multiple suspects is to tell one the other has already given a statement.
Apparently there is a limit on what officers can do. It’s all right to lie, but you cross the line when you physically manufacture evidence. The Texas court of criminal appeals recently considered a case where the officer did just that. In order to get a confession he told the defendant that his fingerprints were on the murder weapon, and created a report which showed that.
Texas has a statute which prevents the state from using evidence that was obtained because of some violation of the law. In this case the defendant argued that the officer violated the statute preventing tampering with a government record. The court agreed, and held that although police can use trickery and deception they cannot use false or manufactured documents.
The question you might have is what happens to the police officer? Clearly, he violated the law when he physically altered and you report. The Court of Criminal Appeals even said so. Will he be prosecuted? I seriously doubt it. After all, anything done in the name of law enforcement is fair game. The worst thing that will happen is that he may not be able to use the confession. That is even in question, because the defendant still must prove the confession was the result of the improper conduct.
There clearly is -and always has been - a double standard when it comes to law enforcement. Is it any wonder why some people question the system? A system that allows officers to break the law as long as they are trying to catch someone who is breaking the law. At least we now know there are limits, even if there are no consequences.
