In a recent case in California, a police chief publicly defended the actions of detectives who obtained a false murder confession from a mentally vulnerable man. The man, Thomas Perez Jr., confessed to killing his father, but the father was later found alive. This situation sparked intense debate about police interrogation techniques, particularly when they involve psychological tactics that can mislead and pressure individuals under mental duress.
Perez had reported his father missing in 2018, which led to an intense, 17-hour interrogation by Fontana Police Department detectives. He was questioned extensively, accused of murder, and prevented from taking his prescribed medications for stress, depression, high blood pressure, and asthma. As the hours wore on, Perez’s condition deteriorated due to sleep deprivation and withdrawal from his medication, yet detectives continued their line of questioning. His legal complaint described being “berated, worn down, and pressured” into a false confession. Eventually, he admitted to a crime he had not committed.
The police chief defended the tactics as both legal and, in his view, necessary. According to him, the detectives employed “ruses” as part of their investigative techniques, stating that such methods are lawful under California law. These tactics, he argued, were meant to help resolve the case, as police believed foul play might be involved. In this instance, the techniques backfired, as Perez’s confession was based on coercion rather than evidence.
Initially, the detectives had circumstantial information that led them to suspect Perez. Family members had allegedly described him as “mentally unstable” and reported incidents that made police suspicious. Neighbors reported seeing a person other than Perez’s father driving his truck in an unusual manner, with something unidentified in the truck bed. Additionally, during a search of Perez’s home, authorities reportedly found blood in various areas, including a staircase, couch, and bathroom. This discovery prompted police to bring in a trained K-9 that, according to reports, alerted to potential remains in the house.
During the interrogation, detectives drove Perez around town, questioning him about possible disposal sites. At one point, they allegedly claimed they had recovered his father’s remains, even going so far as to state that “he has a toe tag on him.” According to the complaint, detectives repeatedly told Perez, “You know you killed him. You did.” This approach, although legal in California, has been criticized as manipulative and deceptive, especially given Perez’s fragile mental state. Police also claimed that Perez made suspicious statements, including, “Don’t bodies float?” while they were stopped near a pond. Statements like these reinforced the detectives’ suspicions, leading them to intensify their interrogation.
After Perez filed a civil lawsuit against the City of Fontana, a federal judge allowed the case to proceed, noting that a “reasonable juror” might conclude police had sufficient reason to investigate Perez initially but had crossed a line in their methods. The judge further noted that Perez was “mentally ill, sleep-deprived, and undergoing symptoms of withdrawal from psychiatric medications” during the interrogation, circumstances that made him particularly vulnerable to coercion. Ultimately, the city settled with Perez for nearly $900,000, acknowledging his mistreatment while stopping short of an apology.
The police chief, however, defended his officers, stating that their approach, while imperfect, was part of their responsibility to pursue all leads in a missing person case. He explained that their suspicions were justified by evidence suggesting that Perez might have harmed his father. While police later located Perez’s father alive and well, the chief underscored the difficult decisions officers must often make in high-stakes cases, asserting that they acted in good faith based on available evidence.
This case raises questions about the ethics and legality of deceptive interrogation tactics. In California, officers are allowed to lie to suspects to extract confessions. However, there is growing criticism of these techniques, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals. Studies and recent guidelines from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training suggest a shift toward more ethical interrogation practices that reduce reliance on psychological manipulation.
The police chief acknowledged the controversy, stating that while detectives were following procedures, the department would review its tactics to prevent similar situations in the future. He emphasized that, in this case, officers were driven by an urgent need to find a potentially endangered person. The chief also pointed out that situations like this can indeed end tragically, but in this instance, they were fortunate the missing person was found alive.
In the aftermath, the case has served as a high-profile example of the potential pitfalls of aggressive interrogation, especially with individuals who may not be mentally fit to endure prolonged questioning. The department’s settlement with Perez highlights an acknowledgment of the harm caused, while the police chief’s public statements reflect the continuing tension between legal justifications and public expectations of humane treatment in the justice system.
