Principle 2: Thorough Investigation in “factual, accurate, complete and prompt note taking.”184 Canada provides its election investigators with comprehensive guidance on notetaking and its recommendations can serve as an exemplary model for other states.185 Note-taking, videotaping, and electronic recording of interviews and interrogations has become increasingly common in police investigations in recent years.186 The Uniform Guidelines for Investigations, however, do not mandate this practice and even countries with well-developed, well-resourced electoral investigations have not adopted it in the election context. At the same time, the Canadian Special Investigators’ Manual recognizes that “[w]hile it is not a practice presently in use…, neither is it rejected as a valid investigative tool.”187 Many of the benefits of recording police interrogations can also apply to the recording of interviews during an election investigation. For instance, recordings increase public trust in police conduct because they emphasize that the police have nothing to hide.188 Similarly, recording the interview can promote confidence in the integrity of the investigative process. If an investigator decides to videotape an interview, he or she should subscribe to the same set of best practices increasingly adopted for the electronic recording of police interrogations. For example, an investigator should consider asking for interviewee consent and should not continue videotaping if an interviewee objects.189 As previously discussed, election investigators have a duty to determine substantiated facts. Hence, during an interview, it is essential for investigators to distinguish between facts, opinions, and hearsay.190 By “attempting as 184 Investigators’ Manual Ch. 11, supra note 168, at 12. 185 Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 11, supra note 174, at 12. 186 The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)—the world’s oldest and largest association of police executives, with more than 19,000 members in 89 countries—has endorsed the practice; see generally Gregory DeClue & Charles Rogers, Interrogations 2013: Safeguarding Against False Confessions, 79 The Police Chief 42 (2012) (discussing IACP’s endorsement of electronic recording). 187 Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 11, supra note 168, at 14–15. 188 See generally Thomas P. Sullivan, Andrew W. Vail, & Howard W. Anderson III, The Case for Recording Police Interrogations, 34 Litig. 1, 4 (2008), http://www.wahltek.com/pdf/WahlTek-iRecord-Litigation-Magazine-2008-05.pdf. 189 See generally Thomas P. Sullivan, Ctr. on Wrongful Convictions, Police Experiences with Recording Custodial Interrogations (2004), http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Recording_Interrogations.pdf (discussing these standards with respect to police interrogations); cf. UNDP Investigation Guidelines 2010, supra note 173, ¶ 11.8 (“When using video or audio recording devices, the subject must be advised that the interview is being recorded . . . .”). 190 Cf. UNDP Investigation Guidelines 2010, supra note 173, ¶ 11.7 (obligating the investigator to find out, during the interview, and to include in the interview a record of “whether the information is firsthand knowledge or hearsay”). 73