Advocacy groups have seized upon these errors, and certain social research studies, to attempt to initiate changes in how law enforcement conducts its photo identifications.

A current concern about eyewitness identifications pits the accuracy of traditional-type photo lineups against the newer sequential, double-blind presentations of photographs in photo lineups.

Although across the country there have been studies commissioned, policies examined, and new laws enacted, controversy persists that there has been a rush to change eyewitness identification procedures in the absence of real world data.

In a traditional photo lineup, the officer or detective who shows the photo array knows which is the suspect’s photograph.  Also in the traditional method, a simultaneous photo lineup shows an eyewitness the photograph of the suspected person together with five to seven other persons’ photographs.

The other persons, called fillers, should reasonably resemble the suspect.  All the photos are presented together, usually on the same page.  The suspect’s position on the page is randomly selected.

Conversely, a double-blind photo line up means that the officer showing the photographs does not know the identity of the suspect. In a sequential photo lineup, the photographs of the suspect and fillers are each presented separately and in a random order.

The comprehensive 1999 U. S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice study Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement articulates either method of photo lineup presentation as valid.

Advocates of change believe, mostly through “common sense” logic and anecdotal academic studies, that sequential, double-blind photo lineups will be more accurate and will lead to fewer (or no) false identifications by witnesses.

Unfortunately, a 2006 Illinois State Police study of actual police lineups conducted by trained officers gave different results.  Illinois enacted legislation to conduct a study of traditional verses sequential, double-blind lineups.  The study collected data for a year, starting in late 2004.

Surprisingly, false identification of filler (innocent) subjects rose to 9.2% in sequential lineups from only 2.8% in traditional lineups.  At the same time, positive identification of known suspects dropped to 45% in sequential lineups from 59.9% in traditional lineups.

Since the Illinois research, similar results were found in other real world studies in Brooklyn and Queens, New York and Hennepin County, Minnesota in actual live and photo criminal lineups.

Some interesting information came from these studies.  In the Illinois study, 75% of the officers did not prefer one method of presentation over the other.  They felt that if an eyewitness could identify the suspect, either type of lineup would suffice.

The Brooklyn, Queens, and Hennepin County studies found no evidence officers were either deliberately or incidentally influencing eyewitnesses during actual lineups.

One focus of advocacy groups has been that false identifications happen because the police may be either intentionally or unintentionally influencing witnesses during lineups.  If it is intentional, it is police misconduct.  If unintentional, it is flawed police procedure.

This line of thinking blames law enforcement and ignores the possibility that sometimes eyewitnesses are just plain mistaken.

Previous academic research studies were done by showing college students and volunteers simulated crime videos and conducting photo lineups afterward.  These research studies based their findings on imaginary scenarios, not real criminal events and their emotional component.

Unfortunately, these academic research studies are the data upon which advocates have based their efforts to force legal mandates on law enforcement to make substantive changes to eyewitness identification procedures.

A positive result of the controversy is that law enforcement is taking a hard look at how photo lineups are conducted.  To improve the effectiveness of lineups, some jurisdictions are adopting standard language for photo pack instructions.

These instructions are given to eyewitnesses before they view the photographs and include statements that:

• The witness will be asked to look at a set of photographs.
• The person who committed the crime may not be shown.
• It is just as important to clear innocent persons as identify guilty parties.
• Persons may not appear as they did at the time of the incident, as hair or clothing may have changed.
• Regardless of whether the witness chooses a subject, the investigation will continue.

Law enforcement agencies are also concentrating on more specific training for officers in the construction and presentation of police photo lineups.

The real world studies concluded that the accuracy differences between traditional lineups and sequential, double-blind photo lineups need further study.  The DOJ NIJ is conducting additional research into the topic.

In the absence of clear empirical data, advocacy-driven changes to photo lineup protocols are unwarranted until the controversy is resolved.

Randall is a twenty-three year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department.  His experience includes six and a half years as a Detective investigating Property Crimes and Crimes Against Persons.

Take, for example, this case.  According to the writer at This Guy Has My MacBook, his Apple laptop was stolen on March 21.  The victim was able to remotely access the computer and collect enough evidence for officers to arrest a suspect on May 31.  What kind of evidence was the victim able to collect?  Things like the suspect’s photo and screenshots of the suspect logging into his Google account.

But, this is not the only incident of the victim turning the tables on an electronics thief.  In this incident, two men took an iPhone during a robbery.  Using the GPS in the iPhone, a Houston PD helicopter was able to locate the men in a pickup truck, and direct patrol officers to the suspects.  The suspects’ truck wrecking and catching fire is not believed to be a special feature from the iPhone App Store.

So, when investigating a case where an electronics item was taken, consider what avenues of investigation you may have open to you.  Most phones have a GPS device in them, and could possibly be tracked by the victim or by the cell company.  Also, many phones and laptops have front facing cameras in them, which means you may be able to get a photo of the suspect if you can access the device remotely.

If you’ve had any success using the victim’s property against the suspect like these cases, let us know in the comments what you did.

Stay safe!

The right to remain silent is a major portion of the Miranda decision, as is the right to counsel.  The court, clarifying the silence aspect of Miranda, followed their previous thinking which holds that the suspect must make a request for counsel before he is considered to have ‘invoked.’

Curiously, the decision was a narrow 5-4, even though the case seemed fairly straightforward.  The latest SCOTUS appointee, Justice Sotomayor, wrote the opinion for the minority.

A murder investigation is arguably one of the most important kinds of cases a police officer will investigate. Thankfully, most of us don’t get a lot of practice at them. This means that the one case that is most likely to generate intense media interest and put you on the witness stand, you are unlikely to have much experience in working.

So, here are a few tips to keep in mind when you respond to a homicide.

First – Know Your SOP. If you follow your department’s standard operating procedure you will avoid any problems with administration and the investigators. Most departments have a pretty good SOP, so following it will keep you out of trouble on the witness stand also.

Second – Protection of Life Is Paramount! Each scene is different, but saving lives is universal. Protect the scene as best you can, but life saving actions always take priority. Morally, legally, and ethically…if you have to choose between trying to save a life and trying to preserve evidence, always try to save the life.

Third – Get Enough Help. You are going to need a lot of manpower at most homicide scenes to secure the location and identify witnesses. You can’t do it all by yourself.

Fourth – Identify the Crime Scene and Secure It. The evidence at the crime scene is not permanent. Things can move, liquids can evaporate, evidence can be stepped on, and perhaps even worse, new things can be introduced into the scene. Contamination of a crime scene can sink the case before it ever gets to court. Also, be aware of how large your crime scene needs to be. Always secure the largest area that may reasonably be involved. Investigators can shrink the size of the scene, if appropriate.

Fifth – Detain and Separate Witnesses. Chances are, you will not interview many witnesses. However, you should detain anyone on scene, and separate them so their memories and stories are not influenced by others. Move them outside of the crime scene and babysit them until detectives get on scene and decide how they want to handle interviews.

Sixth – Written Notes. Write down everything you did, saw, smelled, heard, touched, etc. Make sure someone is running a detailed log of who came into the crime scene. You will omit important information if you wait until later to write down your observations.

Talking with your investigators prior to ever responding to a homicide will give you a great deal of insight into what expectations they have.

Stay safe!