Before I began dealing with criminals every day of my life I would have agreed with everyone here that PALO was wrong in what he did, but here are some points to consider:
This encounter was COMPLETELY consensual. The individual he questioned was under NO obligation to go to the diner and speak with him. The individual could have simply said "No," or he simply could have left if he had became uncomfortable with the direction the encounter was heading. The part I must STRESS is that the individual was NOT involved in a CUSTODIAL interrogation, nor was he even under arrest. Being as this was a consensual encounter and the man volunteered all of the information to PALO, Miranda does NOT apply.
He did NOT deprive this man of his rights.
Another aspect that must be looked at is this man was an ARSONIST. Yes, we ALL are entitled to equal protection under the law, but in this case it was the man's own confessions in a consensual encounter that led to his arrest. Arson is a serious offense, and PALO took a hunch and worked with it the best way he could. If we didn't follow through with the occasional "hunch" that we sometimes get then we wouldn't solve the amount of crime that we do, and as it is now a large percentage of crime goes unsolved. We MUST do so in a way that is legal and that does NOT violate another's rights, and this is exactly what PALO did with this gentleman. He used techniques that were legal and constitutional and that led to the arrest of a violent criminal.
I can assure you all if you dealt with these kinds of people every day you would come to realize it is much harder than one would believe. Most of these individuals prone to violence show NO remorse for the crimes they have committed, and could care less about ANOTHER's rights. They care about themselves and nothing more. If it takes a consensual encounter to get a violent individual off of the streets then go for it.
Let's not forget, had this individual not CONFESSED during this CONSENSUAL encounter, or had he NOT been who PALO believed him to be, the only outcome would have been him conversing with PALO for a while and a free meal. It was his voluntary confession of a violent act that led to his arrest -- nothing more, nothing less.
Thank you. I acted consistently with case law and completely respected all the constitutional protection this man was afforded. All I had to suspect him was that he called in one of the arsons and in all three arsons they occurred on weekends when his wife was out of town. That is certainly not RAS, but just like the initial behavior that led to the french connection bust, it's the kind of behavior that made me go, hmm..
I did some research on the guy, where he went to school etc to see what made him tick (see: catholic guilt). I was later able to use that stuff during the interrogation to eventually get him to break down and confess. I never placed hands on him, made threats, or anything like that. Both the defense attorney and the prosecutor, once the case was adjudicated (after his motions to suppress etc. were denied, he pled guilty) gave me props for a great investigation, and using good investigative tactics to solve a possibly unsolvable crime (forensics-wise).
He freely and voluntarily drove the town hall to be interrogated and I made it crystal clear he was free to leave at any time, placed him by the open door and me on the other side of the table, etc. I never raised my voice, displayed a weapon (I was plainclothes) etc. iow doing all the things to make sure no constructive arrest happened that would require miranda.
Fwiw, I went to grad school for counseling psychology and some of the stuff I learned there, as well as from reading transcripts of the bundy interviews etc. helped in getting into his head. If you know what makes a guy tick, his motivation, etc. it helps a lot. I have taken Reid and Advanced Reid interrogation schools but those are just a starting point. In an interrogation like this, it comes down to establishing rapport and creating psychological pressure in his own mind to confess. He DID feel guilty, as non-sociopaths will feel, and that is one reason why people confess. When you are racked with guilt and uncertainty, the internal pressure to let it go and confess is huge. That's an advantage for the interrogator.
If he hadn't confessed, the case almost certainly would have gone unsolved and.or he would have kept committing arsons until he screwed up enough to get caught.
In my former state (HI) the case law was a "focus" standard for miranda requirements, so I would haev had to mirandize. Heck, in HI if I am interrogating OVER THE PHONE to somebody who is nowhere near me, not in custody and I don't even know where he is, we had to mirandize, because HI chose to require miranda whenever a person was merely the focus of an investigation. However, WA state sticks pretty clearly to the standards established in Miranda v Arizona where miranda warnings are only required when both custody (and for the purpose of miranda, custody can be triggered with far less than even handcuffing. It doesn't take much to trigger a miranda requirement/ and interrogation are present.
I also made 100% sure it wasn't a false confession by entering the interrogation blind as to fire ignition points, etc. Since I didn't know those case facts, there was no way I could , even unintentionally plant ideas in his head. And by his revealing the ignitionpoints , accelerants used, etc. -facts that were NOT known to me but would be known by the perp (and the arson investigator) there was no chance an innocent man was falsely confessing.
There were some very bizarre (but not really for arsons) sexual motivations apparent in his MO and knowing those, it helped with figuring out what made him tick and what made him commit the arsons.
This case was a good example of how being armed with information (all the WA case law on miranda, for instance) is a huge advantage for an LEO. It's why I pore over the LED's and Scotusblog and case law, so that I can be assured I'm on firm footing constitutionally while using the tools available to me.
There are a lot of examples where people who are guilty as #$(#($ get interrogated by the police and not only do they not confess but they are smart enough to take suspicion OFF them. Ridgway, the serial killer, for example submitted to questioning back when he was a person of interest, as have many other serial killers and talking ot the police actually BENEFITED them because it turned the police OFF of suspecting them. Ridgway wwas eventually caught years later through DNA, fwiw.
I guess I have the nuns at his catholic school to thank as well, because I was able to use his deepseated religious convictions and guilt over his crimes to get an in, into his psyche and get the confession. He was an otherwise good person, and thus felt a lot of guilt, so I was able to use that. If he had been a sociopath or just a total scumbag who felt no remorse, the interrogation style I used would not have worked. I got a fair amount of info from his wife and some acquaintances of his before the interrogation as to his motivations, beliefs, etc. and there you go.
I;m damn proud of that case, and for those who are wankin' about it, I don't get it. Completely following the constitution and respecting his rights was paramount in my investigation, which is why even in very liberal WA all the evidence stuck and none of the suppression motions were upheld
the constitution matters in all your actions on duty, that is the only way you have any limited authority at all.