INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a new rule requiring electronic audio-video recordings of suspect interrogations before statements from the interviews can be entered into evidence in felony court proceedings.

The move came on a 3-2 vote of the court, and it surprised some in the legal field who thought the idea had lost favor.

"I didn’t think they were going to do it," Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards said. "My basic problem is it’s giving the impression that police officers are untrustworthy in their rendition of an interview. That has implications."

But a majority on the court found the new policy is in the best interest of justice, adding Indiana to a growing number of states with similar rules.

"The rule change is aimed at helping police, prosecutors, courts and juries in their search for truth, justice, and due process of law," according to a Supreme Court written statement. "A complete audio-video recording, which captures the voice, facial expressions and body language of the suspect and interrogator, can be a valuable tool for law enforcement, courts, and citizens.

"The electronic recording can provide strong evidence of guilt, confirm police gave suspects all required warnings, and ultimately lead to more guilty pleas," the statement said. "The recordings are also likely to lessen factual disputes in court and reduce the number of motions to suppress evidence."

At least nine states have a law mandating the electronic recordings, and court decisions or rules in six other states require or strongly encourage the practice.

But Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard dissented, saying Indiana police and prosecutors have not had problems with improper conduct.

"My assessment of the honesty and professionalism of Indiana’s public safety officers leads me to conclude that today’s action is not warranted," he said.

The new rule applies only to statements made starting in 2011. The delay is due to a request by Marion County law enforcement to buy equipment, train officers and implement new policies.

The rule covers custodial interrogations in a police station or jail involving felony crimes and doesn’t cover statements made as a part of routine processing or booking.

Other exceptions to the rule include cases in which a suspect refuses to be electronically recorded, there is an equipment malfunction or the suspect makes a spontaneous statement not in response to a question.

Defense attorneys welcomed the news.

"Hallelujah," Fort Wayne attorney Nikos Nakos said. "I think that’s wonderful. That will certainly cut down on the trials, I believe, and it will make everyone’s job less difficult."

Defense Attorney Don Swanson was amazed by the court’s new rule but said it’s a positive move forward. He said that sometimes police take "literary license with what they hear."

"I think prosecutors will think it’s good, too," Swanson said. "They want the best case they can get."

Though the rule places a new mandate on police agencies, many departments are already equipped for the policy.

"All of our interrogations are on video and recorded," Kosciusko County Sheriff Rocky Goshert said, saying he worked with the prosecutor’s office to improve the system within the last year.

"I guess that’s what you call blind luck," he said. "It actually protects all officers from false allegations against them."

Several years ago, the Fort Wayne Police Department recorded interrogations only in homicide cases.

But Fort Wayne Police Chief Rusty York said that has been changed in recent years to include robberies and burglaries.

"What this could mean is that arrests, such as D-felony arrests, would require a videotaped interview or at least a reading of rights or attempt to make an interview," he said. "What we’re probably looking at, when we move to a new building, we’ve got a significant balance in our seizure funds to upgrade our recording capabilities."

York said the rule’s biggest effect could be on domestic battery or drunken driving cases, which are sometimes felonies.

Steve Johnson, director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said the new rule will not save courts time but will simply shift arguments.

Instead of examining whether proper warnings were given and whether a confession was voluntary, he said, the arguments will be about whether a defendant refused a recording or whether a recording was accurate, complete and continuous.

Johnson was especially shocked at how the rule came to fruition. He said the Indiana Supreme Court asked the court’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to examine the idea in March. After several hearings on the topic, that committee voted 5-1 not to recommend the new rule, he said.

More than 300 attorneys, judges and law enforcement officials commented on the rule in recent months, and Johnson said 61 percent were against the rule.

"After all that, we assumed it was off the table," he said.

Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, chairman of the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee, said "it’s a gray area" whether the rule should have gone through the legislative process.

"There has been tension between the legislature and the courts in the past about what the legislature can do in areas of evidence," he said. "The court says the Constitution gives them the job of administering courts, so they are the final word."

Regardless, Pierce said, he thinks the rule is positive.

"It gives a clear, objective record of how the interrogation went," he said. "If the police officer was out of line, you are going to see that. And you will also see when the officer did nothing wrong."

nkelly@jg.net