A Descriptive Analysis of How Canadian Police Officers Administer the Right-to-Silence and Right-to-Legal-Counsel Cautions

Abstract

The administration of the right-to-silence and right-to-legal-counsel cautions in 126 investigative interviews (37 videotapes, 89 transcripts) was evaluated with a 78-item coding manual. We found that the right-to-silence and right-to-legal-counsel cautions were administered in 87% and 83% of the interviews, respectively. Average speech rates for both cautions exceeded acceptable levels for ensuring listening comprehension. Although the right-to-silence and right-to-legal-counsel cautions were not always read verbatim, the interviewers rarely missed rights that are contained in the cautions or incorrectly read the cautions. Interviewees almost always confirmed that they understood both cautions, but interviewers rarely attempted to verify that they actually understood them. Attempts to explain various rights in both cautions were always done correctly. Interviewees invoked their right to silence in 25% of cases and chose to speak to a lawyer in 31% of cases. The implications of these findings for improving the administration of justice in Canada are discussed.