Final answer:
The use of trickery or deceit by police during an interrogation must remain within the bounds of constitutional protections, particularly the Fifth Amendment. The Miranda v. Arizona case requires that suspects be informed of their rights to remain silent and to counsel; otherwise, any statements made may be deemed inadmissible. Police tactics that coerce or violate these protections are unconstitutional.
Step-by-step explanation:
Can police use trickery or deceit during an interrogation? In certain situations, law enforcement may use some forms of trickery or deceit, but they must still adhere to constitutional protections. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination and guarantees the right to counsel. The landmark case Miranda v. Arizona established that suspects must be informed of their rights before interrogation, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Failure to notify suspects of these rights may result in an unconstitutional interrogation process, rendering any obtained statements inadmissible in court.
While police are known to use psychological tactics during interrogations, these must not cross the line into coercion, as that would violate the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment. Examples of unconstitutional interrogation practices were highlighted in cases such as Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart, where suspects were not informed of their rights. The use of such tactics led to the Miranda ruling, which requires officers to demonstrate the use of procedural safeguards to ensure a suspect's constitutional rights are protected.