; Thomas P. Sullivan, Recording Federal Custodial Interviews, 45 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1297 (2008). (2) Video recording of the entire process of custodial interrogation has proven to be a major advance in law enforcement, improving the ability to solve crimes and prove cases while lowering the overall costs of investigation and litigation. (3) Video recording of custodial interrogations promotes truth-finding in several ways, including by reducing the incentive to fabricate, compensating for faulty or unreliable recollections of witnesses, deterring problematic interrogation methods, filtering out weak cases, and enhancing the ability of finders of fact to assess witness credibility and veracity. (4) Video recording of custodial interrogations promotes efficiency in the administration of the criminal justice system by reducing the number of frivolous suppression motions, improving the quality of police investigations, improving the quality of review and case screening by prosecutors, and reducing the likelihood of hung juries. (5) Video recording of custodial interrogations safeguards constitutional rights and values by making it easier for courts to adjudicate motions to suppress, by making it easier for prosecutors to preserve and disclose material exculpatory evidence required under the Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by making it easier for superiors to train police officers in how to comply with constitutional mandates and for the press, and by making it easier for the press, the judiciary, prosecutors, independent watchdog groups, and police administrators to identify and correct misuses of power by law enforcement. (6) Video recordings of custodial interrogations make it easier to identify and avoid biases, which would otherwise be difficult to detect and correct because such biases are often unconscious, thus operating outside police awareness. (7) Video recordings of custodial interrogations help to improve public confidence in the fairness and professionalism of policing,