Which statement best distinguishes an interview from an interrogation?

• A. An interview is a conversation with witnesses or non-custodial subjects; interrogation is questioning a suspect in custody or under coercion.
• B. An interview is conducted in writing; interrogation is oral.
• C. An interview always involves confrontation; interrogation is friendly.
• D. An interview requires probable cause; interrogation does not.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is how custody and coercion shape the interaction. An interview is a voluntary information-gathering talk with witnesses or people who are not in custody; there’s no implied coercion and the person is generally free to leave. An interrogation, however, involves questioning a suspect who is in custody or under conditions where they’re not free to depart, and it’s conducted in a way aimed at eliciting information or a confession, often with rights considerations like Miranda warnings when applicable.

That’s why the statement identifying the distinction this way is best: it captures custody status and the level of coercion, whereas the other points misstate the nature of interviews (not solely written vs oral), assume confrontation, or require probable cause for interviews (which isn’t a defining feature).