that may have suggested to Ortiz that she was not a law enforcement officer. She never suggested, however, that she was acting solely in Ortiz’s interest. A reasonable person would have understood that Detective Cardwell was acting at the request of the detectives. The polygraph was to be conducted at the sheriffs headquarters. It was arranged by the detectives after Ortiz volunteered to take a lie detector test. While Ortiz may have been deceived by Detective Cardwell’s comments into believing that she was not a member of the San Bernardino Sheriffs Department, this type of “deception” is well within the range of permissible interrogation tactics necessary to secure a lawful confession by the police. See Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969) (<HOLDING>). Detective Cardwell’s statements did not
holding defendants confession was voluntary and admissible when police misrepresented to defendant that he had been seen with the victim the night she was murdered that his tires and shoe matched impressions found at the murder scene and that the police had dna evidence establishing defendants guilt holding that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to support a murder conviction in a case in which the prosecution depended upon a showing that defendants fingerprints were left on the murder weapon during the commission of the crime holding that an officers promise to bring defendants cooperation to the attention of the prosecutor did not make confession involuntary holding that a police officers lie to defendant about his cousin confessing to the commission of a murder was insufficient in the supreme courts view to make an otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible holding that the fact that police falsely told defendant that his companion had confessed to the crime under investigation though relevant was insufficient to render otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible