Section V. Procedures for Eyewitness Identification of Suspects

Before instructing section V, consider playing video clip 1. Only the incident video is shown at this point. Do not provide any instructions to the students prior to viewing the clip other than to watch the screen. The idea is to catch the students by surprise the way that most eyewitnesses are caught. Once they have viewed the clip, move on to the procedural instruction below (the lineup videos will be viewed later).

A. Composing Lineups

Principle: Fair composition of a lineup enables the witness to provide a more accurate identification or nonidentification.

Policy: The investigator should compose the lineup in such a manner that the suspect does not unduly stand out.

Procedure:

Photo Lineup: In composing a photo lineup, the investigator should:

1. Include only one suspect in each identification procedure.

   The problem with multiple-suspect lineups is that the probability of a possible mistaken identification rises dramatically as the number of suspects in a lineup increases. If more than one suspect must be shown in any one lineup, the fillers must be multiplied accordingly (e.g., 2 suspects require a minimum of 10 fillers).

2. Select fillers who generally fit the witness?s description of the perpetrator. When there is a limited/inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features.

   This does not mean that the fillers must closely resemble the suspect (see notes under procedure 5 below). If the description does not fit the suspect on some characteristic (e.g., the witness described dark hair, yet the suspect has light hair), then the fillers should match the suspect on that characteristic rather than matching the description on that characteristic so that the suspect does not unduly stand out.

3. If multiple photos of the suspect are reasonably available to the investigator, select a photo that resembles the suspect?s description or appearance at the time of the incident.

   The most recent photo of the suspect is not necessarily the best one to use if the suspect?s appearance has changed since the time of the crime. For example, the suspect may intentionally change his/her appearance.

4. Include a minimum of five fillers (nonsuspects) per identification procedure.

   This is a suggested minimum number; some jurisdictions might require more fillers.

5. Consider that complete uniformity of features is not required. Avoid using fillers that so closely resemble the suspect that a person familiar with the suspect might find it difficult to distinguish the suspect from the fillers.

In their efforts to ensure that the suspect?s photo does not unduly stand out, police have often gone to great lengths to ensure that all members of a lineup look as similar to one another as possible, including the suspect. Making the fillers closely resemble the suspect is not advised because a lineup in which all the people look very similar to one another actually reduces the chances of an accurate identification by a witness. According to procedures 2, 5, 6, and 10, lineup fillers must merely match the description of the offender as given by the witness viewing that lineup, as long as the policy is upheld that the suspect does not unduly stand out.

6. Consider creating a consistent appearance between the suspect and fillers with respect to any unique or unusual feature (e.g., scars or tattoos) used to describe the perpetrator by artificially adding or concealing that feature.

   If there is a unique feature/characteristic described by the witness, such as a scar, the preferred procedure is to leave the unique feature visible and select fillers with a similar feature/characteristic. Sometimes police choose to enhance the fillers with a similar feature (still ensuring that the suspect does not unduly stand out). If the suspect has a unique feature not described by the witness, you should not alter the suspect?s photo. Rather you should select fillers that have a similar, but not identical, feature or enhance the fillers with a similar feature.

Slide 85 is a photo lineup from a case in which the witness described the perpetrator as being a cross-eyed black male. The investigator in this case was unable to find cross-eyed black males to serve as fillers, so he chose to create this photo lineup using imaging software on a computer to cross the eyes of the fillers.

7. Consider placing suspects in different positions in each lineup, both across cases and with multiple witnesses in the same case. Position the suspect randomly in the lineup.

   	If specific investigators consistently choose the same lineup location for the suspect, this can become common knowledge among both law enforcement officers and the general public. This could lead a witness to pick the person in that position for reasons other than recognizing the suspect.
   	Some witnesses can be reserved for alternative identification procedures, such as a live lineup or a different photo lineup. For example, your original identification procedure may be found to be inadmissible in court, whereas an alternative procedure (e.g., a live lineup) or a second photo lineup may be admissible.

8. When showing a new suspect, avoid reusing fillers in lineups shown to the same witness.

   Using the same fillers with a new suspect can make the suspect stand out as the only one not appearing in a previous photo lineup. This could be considered a suggestive procedure. Also, the witness might recognize one of the fillers (from seeing him/her in a previous lineup) and misidentify the filler as the perpetrator.

9. Ensure that no writings or information concerning previous arrest(s) will be visible to the witness.

   Some witnesses might try to extract meaning from any arrest dates or other markings on the photos. Such information could lead some witnesses to make faulty inferences. Booking plates, for instance, can be covered with tape. Also ensure that no writings indicating previous witnesses? identifications are visible to the witness.

10. View the spread, once completed, to ensure that the suspect does not unduly stand out.

    Consider showing the photo lineup to people unfamiliar with the case and ask them if they can identify the suspect. In general, if the photo lineup is properly constructed, a person who is given the verbal description of the perpetrator (as described by the witness) should not be able to tell which person is the suspect in the case.

11. Preserve the presentation order of the photo lineup. In addition, the photos themselves should be preserved in their original condition.

    In order to defend legal challenges to the lineup procedures, it is critical to reproduce the original lineup for presentation in future proceedings. It is advisable to retain the original photos as evidence or, alternatively, photocopy (in color if possible) the original lineup to produce a copy in the event that one or more of the original photographs cannot be reproduced and to preserve an accurate representation of the order of the photos.

Live Lineup:
Note how the criteria for selecting fillers for a photo lineup are the same as the criteria for selecting fillers for a live lineup (except for the minimum number of fillers).

In composing a live lineup, the investigator should?

1. Include only one suspect in each identification procedure.

   In multiple-suspect lineups, the probability of a possible mistaken identification rises as the number of suspects in a lineup increases. If more than one suspect must be presented in any one lineup, the fillers should be multiplied accordingly (e.g., two suspects indicate a minimum of eight fillers).

2. Select fillers who generally fit the witness?s description of the perpetrator. When there is a limited/inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features.

   This does not mean that the fillers must closely resemble the suspect (see notes under procedure 6 below). If the description does not fit the suspect on some characteristic (e.g., the witness described dark hair, yet the suspect has light hair), then the fillers should match the suspect on that characteristic rather than matching the description on that characteristic so that the suspect does not stand out.

3. Consider placing suspects in different positions in each lineup, both across cases and with multiple witnesses in the same case. Position the suspect randomly, unless, where local practice allows, the suspect or the suspect?s attorney requests a particular position.

   	If specific investigators consistently choose the same lineup location for the suspect, this can become common knowledge among both law enforcement officers and the general public. This could lead a witness to pick the person in that position for reasons other than recognizing the suspect.
   	Some witnesses can be reserved for alternative identification procedures, such as a photo lineup or a different live lineup. For example, your original identification procedure may be found to be inadmissible in court, whereas an alternative procedure (e.g., a photo lineup) or a second live lineup may be admissible.

4. Include a minimum of four fillers (nonsuspects) per identification procedure.

   The fact that a fewer number of fillers is required for a live lineup than for a photo lineup is purely a practical consideration. This is a suggested minimum. It is more difficult to obtain people to use as fillers in a live lineup than it is to obtain photos to use as fillers for a photo lineup.

5. When showing a new suspect, avoid reusing fillers in lineups shown to the same witness.

   Using the same fillers with a new suspect can make the suspect stand out as the only one not appearing in a previous lineup. This could be considered a suggestive procedure. Also, the witness might recognize one of the fillers (from seeing him/her in a previous lineup) and misidentify the filler as the perpetrator.

6. Consider that complete uniformity of features is not required. Avoid using fillers that so closely resemble the suspect that a person familiar with the suspect might find it difficult to distinguish the suspect from the fillers.

   In their efforts to ensure that the suspect does not unduly stand out, police have often gone to great lengths to ensure that all members of a lineup look as similar to one another as possible, including the suspect. Selecting fillers that closely resemble the suspect is not advised because a lineup in which all the people look very similar to one another actually reduces the chances of an accurate identification by a witness. According to procedures 2, 6, and 7, lineup fillers must merely match the description of the offender as given by the witness viewing that lineup, as long as the policy is upheld that the suspect does not unduly stand out.

7. Consider creating a consistent appearance between the suspect and fillers with respect to any unique or unusual feature (e.g., scars, tattoos) used to describe the perpetrator by artificially adding or concealing that feature.

   If there is a unique feature/characteristic described by the witness, such as a scar, police sometimes choose to leave the unique feature visible and select fillers with a similar feature/characteristic or enhance the fillers with a similar feature (still ensuring that the suspect does not unduly stand out). If the suspect has a unique feature not described by the witness, you should not alter the suspect?s appearance. Rather you should select fillers that have a similar, but not identical, feature or enhance the fillers with a similar feature.

Summary: These suggestions can help produce a lineup in which the suspect does not unduly stand out. An identification obtained through lineup composed in this manner may have stronger evidentiary value.

Now show the video clips of the live lineups to complete the exercise begun at the start of this section.* Most students will pick someone from the video lineup and will be surprised when you tell them that the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup. Play the video of the event again so that the students can see the actual perpetrator and note how he is not simply a ?lookalike? for those in the lineup.** Explain to them at this point that the most difficult problem that witnesses confront in a lineup is when the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup.

Explain to the students how eyewitnesses have natural tendencies to select someone from a lineup who looks most like the perpetrator relative to the other lineup members. Although this strategy works well if the perpetrator is in the lineup, there are times when the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup.

Explain to the students that the suggestions described in the Guide for conducting photographic and live lineups are designed to minimize the chances of mistaken identification while still permitting witnesses to identify the actual perpetrator. Point out that the lineup used in the video was a poor example of how a lineup should be constructed and that the viewing instructions given were poor (only one suspect fits the original description and instructions failed to indicate that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup).

B. Instructing the Witness Prior to Viewing a Lineup

Much of the material in this section should help prevent the witness from making ?relative judgments.? Relative judgments occur when witnesses encounter a lineup in which the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup (i.e., the suspect is not the actual perpetrator). Research shows that eyewitnesses tend to select the person who looks most like the perpetrator relative to the other lineup members. The fact that police are showing a lineup to a witness can lead some witnesses to presume that the actual perpetrator will be in the lineup. These instructions are designed to help reduce the tendency for witnesses to make this assumption.

Principle: Instructions given to the witness prior to viewing can facilitate an identification or nonidentification based on his/her own memory.

Policy: Prior to presenting a lineup, the investigator should provide instructions to the witness to ensure the witness understands that the purpose of the identification procedure is to exculpate the innocent as well as to identify the actual perpetrator.

Procedure:

Photo Lineup: Prior to presenting a photo lineup, the investigator should?

1. Advise the witness that he/she will be asked to view a set of photographs.

2. Advise the witness that it is just as important to clear innocent persons from suspicion as to identify guilty parties.

   Because the suspect in the case might not be the actual offender, the identification procedure can in fact help clear innocent persons from suspicion. This instruction helps emphasize that failure to identify the suspect might be, in some cases, the appropriate outcome. Clearing an innocent suspect from suspicion can help refocus the investigation on developing other suspects.

3. Advise the witness that individuals depicted in lineup photos may not appear exactly as they did on the date of the incident because features such as head and facial hair are subject to change.

   Many physical characteristics are changeable. Hair, for instance, can be restyled, colored, cut, or grown longer; facial hair can be grown or cut; and so forth. Witnesses need to keep in mind that the suspect?s appearance on these changeable features might have been different at the time of the photo than it was at the time of the crime.

4. Advise the witness that the person who committed the crime may or may not be in the set of photographs being presented.

   This training seeks to prevent the misidentification of an innocent suspect. It is important to emphasize that the person who committed the crime may not be present. It does not weaken the investigation if the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup and the witness does not make a selection. In fact, it may benefit the investigation by strengthening the witness?s credibility and helping to refocus the investigation.

5. Assure the witness that regardless of whether an identification is made, the police will continue to investigate the incident.

   This instruction lessens the pressure on the witness to make an identification and reassures the witness that the progress of the investigation does not hinge solely on his/her identification. Even if the witness does not make an identification, the investigation should continue.

6. When appropriate, advise the witness that the procedure requires the investigator to ask the witness to state, in his/her own words, how certain he/she is of any identification.

   It can be helpful to have some indication of how certain the witness is at the time of the identification. This can be useful in assessing the likelihood of whether or not the identification is accurate. Later, the witness?s certainty might be influenced by other factors.

   It is not necessary for the witness to give a number to express his/her certainty. Some witnesses will spontaneously include information about certainty (e.g., ?That?s him, I KNOW that?s him,? or ?It could be number three.?). If the witness does not volunteer information about certainty, then the witness can be asked to state certainty in his/her own words. A question such as, ?How do you know this individual?? will often lead the witness to express his/her certainty. If a statement of certainty is not obtained, then the investigator can follow up with the question, ?How certain are you??

Live Lineup: Prior to presenting a live lineup, the investigator should?

1. Advise the witness that he/she will be asked to view a group of individuals.

2. Advise the witness that it is just as important to clear innocent persons from suspicion as to identify guilty parties.

   Because the suspect in the case might not be the actual offender, the identification procedure can in fact help clear innocent persons from suspicion. This advice helps emphasize that failure to identify the suspect might be, in some cases, the appropriate outcome. Clearing an innocent suspect from suspicion can help refocus the investigation on developing other suspects.

3. Advise the witness that individuals present in the lineup may not appear exactly as they did on the date of the incident, as features such as head and facial hair are subject to change.

   Many physical characteristics are changeable. Hair, for instance, can be restyled, colored, cut, grown longer; facial hair can be grown or cut; and so forth. Witnesses need to keep in mind that the suspect?s appearance on these changeable features might be different at the time of the lineup than it was at the time of the crime.

4. Advise the witness that the person who committed the crime may or may not be present in the group of individuals.

   This training seeks to prevent the misidentification of an innocent suspect. It is important to emphasize that the person who committed the crime may not be present. It does not weaken the investigation if the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup and the witness does not make a selection. In fact, it may benefit the investigation by strengthening the witness?s credibility and helping to refocus the investigation.

5. Assure the witness that regardless of whether an identification is made, the police will continue to investigate the incident.

   This lessens the pressure on the witness to make an identification and reassures the witness that the progress of the investigation does not hinge solely on his/her identification. Even if the witness does not make an identification, the investigation will continue.

6. When appropriate, advise the witness that the procedure requires the investigator to ask the witness to state, in his/her own words, how certain he/she is of any identification.

   It can be helpful to have some indication of how certain the witness is at the time of the identification. It can be useful in assessing the likelihood of whether or not the identification is accurate. Later, the witness?s certainty might be influenced by other factors.

   It is not necessary for the witness to give a number to express his/her certainty. Some witnesses will spontaneously include information about certainty (e.g., ?That?s him, I KNOW that?s him,? or ?It could be number 3.?). If the witness does not volunteer information about certainty, then the witness should be asked to state certainty in his/her own words. A question such as, ?How do you know this individual?? will often lead the witness to express his/her certainty. If a statement of certainty is not obtained, then the investigator should follow up with the question, ?How certain are you??

Summary: Appropriate information provided to the witness prior to presentation of a lineup will likely improve the accuracy and reliability of any identification obtained from the witness and can facilitate the elimination of innocent parties from the investigation.

C. Conducting the Identification Procedure

Explain to students the distinction between a simultaneous and a sequential identification procedure. In a simultaneous identification procedure, all members of the lineup are shown to the witness at the same time. This allows the witness to compare all lineup members before making a decision. In a sequential lineup procedure, however, the witness views only one member of the lineup at a time. The witness must make a decision on each lineup member before viewing the next lineup member.

A major difference between the simultaneous and sequential procedure is that the sequential procedure tends to prevent the eyewitness from making relative judgments. Recall that relative judgments can be problematic because they involve comparing one lineup member to another and picking the person who most looks like the perpetrator. The sequential procedure leads witnesses to compare each lineup member with their memory of the perpetrator rather than comparing one lineup member with another lineup member. Relative judgments can also be reduced even with a simultaneous procedure by using suggestions on composing, instructing witnesses on, and conducting simultaneous lineups described in the Guide.

Some jurisdictions may want to consider using ?blind? identification procedures. In a typical blind identification procedure, the person who conducts the lineup does not know which person in the lineup is the suspect. Using this type of procedure, the case investigator simply has someone conduct the lineup who is not familiar with the case, not familiar with the identity of the lineup members, and does not know the lineup position of the suspect. Such a procedure helps ensure not only that the case investigator does not unintentionally influence the witness but also that there can be no arguments later (e.g., at trial) that the witness?s selection or statements at the lineup were influenced by the case investigator.

Although an awareness on the part of the investigator that he/she should do nothing to influence the witness?s choice or certainty can be sufficient to ensure that such influence does not occur, some jurisdictions might nevertheless prefer to use blind testing techniques. Students can be told about blind identification procedures in the context of discussions about how to avoid influencing the witness.

Principle: The identification procedure should be conducted in a manner that promotes the reliability, fairness, and objectivity of the witness?s identification.

Policy: The investigator should conduct the lineup in a manner conducive to obtaining accurate identification or nonidentification decisions.

Procedure:

Simultaneous Photo Lineup:
When presenting a simultaneous photo lineup, the investigator should?

1. Provide viewing information to the witness as outlined in subsection B, Instructing the Witness Prior to Viewing a Lineup.

2. Confirm that the witness understands the nature of the lineup procedure.

   Investigators should make sure that the witness understands everything at this point. For example, witnesses can be asked, ?Do you understand?? or ?Do you have any questions??

3. Avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness?s selection.

   Ideally, nothing should be said to the witness because it might indicate which person the investigator believes is the perpetrator or that the investigator believes the perpetrator is definitely in the lineup. Also, anything said to the witness might interfere with his/her ability to concentrate on the task. If something needs to be said to facilitate the procedure, it must not convey any information about the identity of the suspect (e.g., NOT ?I noticed you pointed at number two,? BUT rather ?Would it help for me to explain the instructions again??).

4. If an identification is made, avoid reporting to the witness any information regarding the individual he/she has selected prior to obtaining the witness?s statement of certainty.

   The witness should not be told anything about the status of the person identified at this point (e.g., do not say anything that validates the witness?s selection, such as, ?That?s the person we have as a suspect,? or ?That?s the same person that another witness picked?; do not say anything that discounts the witness?s selection, such as, ?That person is not a suspect?). This includes nonverbal reactions, such as facial expressions of approval or disapproval. Such reactions can influence the certainty (confidence level) that the witness expresses in his/her choice.

   A witness may identify a suspect from a lineup and the investigators later uncover evidence clearing that suspect. Inadvertently reinforcing the witness?s selection (e.g., ?That was our suspect?) will make it difficult to show that witness another lineup with a new suspect. It can be acceptable to share the results of the identification at a later time, but not before the witness?s level of certainty has been ascertained.

5. Record any identification results and witness?s statement of certainty as outlined in subsection D, Recording Identification Results.

Some departments have a form on which to record the results of a lineup identification procedure. Usually, such forms have a place to enter the number of the lineup member who was selected (if any), the name and other identifying information of the witness, the date the lineup was held, the name of the investigator who administered the lineup and the names of others who might have been present, a case number, and lines for the signatures of the witness and the investigator. This form may also include space for the witness to write out a statement about the identification.

6. Document in writing the photo lineup procedures, including?

   1. Identification information and sources of all photos used.

   2. Names of all persons present at the photo lineup.

   3. Date and time of the identification procedure.

7. Advise the witness not to discuss the identification procedure or its results with other witnesses involved in the case and discourage contact with the media.

   	Remind the witness that discussing the results of the procedure could harm the investigation. Such discussion by the witness may influence other witnesses? identification decisions or their certainty.
   	Witnesses can be warned at this time that the positioning of the lineup members might be changed for other witnesses and that it is important not to try to influence another witness. It is important that witnesses reach decisions independently, not only for investigative purposes but also for later proceedings.

Sequential Photo Lineup:
The sequential procedure is quite different from the simultaneous procedure. The sequential decision procedure is meant to reduce the tendency of the witness to compare one photo with another photo (i.e., make relative judgments). The idea is for the witness to make a final decision on each photo before moving on to the next photo by comparing each photo with his/her memory of the perpetrator. When presenting a sequential photo lineup, the investigator should?

1. Provide viewing information to the witness as outlined in subsection B, Instructing the Witness Prior to Viewing a Lineup.

2. Provide the following additional viewing information to the witness:

   1. Individual photographs will be viewed one at a time.

   2. The photos are in random order.

   3. Take as much time as needed in making a decision about each photo before moving on to the next one.

4. All photos will be shown, even if an identification is made; or the procedure will be stopped at the point of an identification (consistent with jurisdictional/departmental procedures).

The investigator should follow a fixed technique as to whether the procedure will stop when the witness makes a selection of a photo or whether the procedure will continue until all photos are presented. If the investigator sometimes continues to show photos and sometimes does not, it could appear that the decision to continue is being based on whether the witness is making the ?right? pick.

3. Confirm that the witness understands the nature of the sequential procedure.

Investigators should make sure that the witness understands everything at this point. Witnesses can be asked, ?Do you understand?? or ?Do you have any questions??

4. Present each photo to the witness separately, in a previously determined order, removing those previously shown.

   Let the witness determine when to view the next photo (within a reasonable amount of time). There should not be more than one photograph displayed at once.

5. Avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness?s selection.

   Ideally, nothing should be said to the witness because it might indicate which person the investigator believes is the perpetrator or that the investigator believes that the perpetrator is definitely in the lineup. Also, anything said to the witness might interfere with his/her ability to concentrate on the task. If something needs to be said to facilitate the procedure, it should not convey any information about the identity of the suspect (e.g., NOT ?I noticed you pointed at number two,? BUT rather, ?Would it help for me to explain the instructions again??). Following this procedure is especially important with the sequential lineup because only one photo is being viewed at any given time.

6. If an identification is made, avoid reporting to the witness any information regarding the individual he/she has selected prior to obtaining any witness?s statement of certainty.

   If the investigator wants to question the witness about certainty, the witness should not be told anything about the status of the person identified at this point (e.g., do not say, ?That is the person we have as a suspect,? or ?That is the same person that another witness picked?; do not say anything that discounts the witness?s selection, such as, ?That person is not a suspect?). This includes nonverbal reactions, such as facial expressions of approval or disapproval. Such reactions could influence the certainty (confidence level) that the witness expresses in his/her choice.

   To make this more clear, consider the fact that a witness may identify a suspect from a lineup and the investigators later uncover evidence clearing that suspect. Inadvertently reinforcing the witness?s selection (e.g., ?That was our suspect?) will make it difficult to show that witness another lineup with a new suspect. It can be acceptable to share the results of the identification at a later time, but not before the witness?s level of certainty has been ascertained.

7. Record any identification results and witness?s statement of certainty as outlined in subsection D, Recording Identification Results.

8. Document in writing the photo lineup procedures, including?

   1. Identification information and sources of all photos used.

   2. Names of all persons present at the photo lineup.

   3. Date and time of the identification procedure.

9. Advise the witness not to discuss the identification procedure or its results with other witnesses involved in the case and discourage contact with the media.

   	Remind the witness that discussing the results of the procedure could harm the investigation. Such discussion by the witness may influence any other witnesses? identification decisions or their certainty.
   	Witnesses can be advised at this time that the positioning of the lineup members might be changed for other witnesses and that it is important not to try to influence another witness. Witnesses should reach decisions independently in order to aid the investigation and later proceedings.

Simultaneous Live Lineup:
When presenting a simultaneous live lineup, the investigator/lineup administrator should?

1. Provide viewing information to the witness as outlined in subsection B, Instructing the Witness Prior to Viewing a Lineup.

2. Advise all those present at the lineup not to suggest in any way the position or identity of the suspect in the lineup.

3. Ensure that any identification actions (e.g., speaking, moving) are performed by all members of the lineup.

   Even if the witness asks for only one person to walk or speak, all lineup members should be asked to perform the same action. Start with lineup member number one (as previously determined) and have each lineup member perform the action in order. (Consider that certain jurisdictions may have restrictions on what can be said by any lineup participant.)

4. Avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness?s selection.

   Ideally, nothing should be said to the witness at this point because it might indicate which person the investigator believes is the perpetrator or that the investigator believes the perpetrator is definitely in the lineup. Also, anything said to the witness might interfere with his/her ability to concentrate on the task. If something needs to be said to facilitate the procedure, it must not convey any information about the identity of the suspect (e.g., NOT ?I noticed you pointed at number two,? BUT rather ?Would it help for me to explain the instructions again??).

5. If an identification is made, avoid reporting to the witness any information regarding the individual he/she has selected prior to obtaining any witness?s statement of certainty.

   If the investigator wants to question the witness about certainty, the witness should not be told anything about the status of the person identified at this point (e.g., do not say, ?That?s the person we have as a suspect,? or ?That is the same person that another witness picked?; do not say, ?That person is not a suspect?). This includes nonverbal reactions, such as facial expressions of approval or disapproval. Such reactions could influence the certainty (confidence level) that the witness expresses in his/her choice.

   To make this clearer, consider the fact that a witness may identify a suspect from a lineup and the investigators later uncover evidence clearing that suspect. Inadvertently reinforcing the witness?s selection (e.g., ?That was our suspect?) will make it difficult to show that witness another lineup with a new suspect. It can be acceptable to share the results of the identification at a later time, but not before the witness?s level of certainty has been ascertained.

6. Record any identification results and witness?s statement of certainty as outlined in subsection D, Recording Identification Results.

7. Document the lineup in writing, including?

   1. Identification information of lineup participants.

   2. Names of all persons present at the lineup.

   3. Date and time the identification procedure was conducted.

8. Document the lineup by photo or video. This documentation should be of a quality that represents the lineup clearly and fairly.

9. Advise the witness not to discuss the identification procedure or its results with other witnesses involved in the case and discourage contact with the media.

   	Remind the witness that discussing the results of the procedure could harm the investigation. Such discussion by the witness may influence any other witnesses? identification decisions or their certainty.
   	Witnesses can be advised at this time that the positioning of the lineup members might be changed for other witnesses and that it is important not to try to influence another witness. It is important that witnesses reach decisions independently, not only for investigative purposes but also for later proceedings.

Sequential Live Lineup:
When presenting a sequential live lineup, the lineup administrator/investigator should?

1. Provide viewing information to the witness as outlined in subsection B, Instructing the Witness Prior to Viewing a Lineup.

2. Provide the following additional viewing information to the witness:

   1. Individuals will be viewed one at a time.

   2. The individuals will be presented in random order.

   3. Take as much time as needed in making a decision about each individual before moving to the next one.

   4. If the person who committed the crime is present, identify him/her.

   5. All individuals will be presented, even if an identification is made; or the procedure will be stopped at the point of an identification (consistent with jurisdictional/departmental procedures).

      The investigator should follow a fixed technique as to whether the procedure will stop when the witness makes a selection or whether the procedure will continue until all individuals are presented. If the investigator sometimes continues to show individuals and sometimes does not, it could appear that the decision to continue is being based on whether the witness is making the ?right? pick.

3. Begin with all lineup participants out of the view of the witness.

4. Advise all those present at the lineup not to suggest in any way the position or identity of the suspect in the lineup.

5. Present each individual to the witness separately, in a previously determined order, removing those previously shown.

   	Let the witness determine when to view the next individual (within a reasonable amount of time). There should never be more than one individual displayed at once.
   	If the witness asks to view a particular lineup member again following the procedure, allow him/her to do so and document that fact.

6. Ensure that any identification actions (e.g., speaking, moving) are performed by all members of the lineup.

   Even if the witness asks for only one person to walk or speak, all lineup members should be asked to perform the same action. Have each lineup member perform the action when they are presented. (Consider that certain jurisdictions may have restrictions on what can be said by any lineup participant.)

7. Avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness?s selection.

   Ideally, nothing should be said to the witness because it might indicate which person the investigator believes is the perpetrator or that the investigator believes the perpetrator is definitely in the lineup. Also, anything said to the witness might interfere with his/her ability to concentrate on the task. If something needs to be said to facilitate the procedure, it must not convey any information about the identity of the suspect (e.g., NOT ?I noticed you pointed at number two,? BUT rather ?Would it help for me to explain the instructions again??). Following this procedure is especially important with the sequential lineup because only one individual is being viewed at any given time.

8. If an identification is made, avoid reporting to the witness any information regarding the individual he/she has selected prior to obtaining any witness?s statement of certainty.

   If the investigator wants to question the witness about certainty, the witness should not be told anything about the status of the person identified at this point (e.g., do not say, ?That?s the person we have as a suspect,? or ?That is the same person that another witness picked?; do not say, ?That person is not a suspect?). This includes nonverbal reactions, such as facial expressions of approval or disapproval. Such reactions could influence the certainty (confidence level) that the witness expresses in his/her choice.

   To make this clearer, consider the fact that a witness may identify a suspect from a lineup and the investigators later uncover evidence clearing that suspect. Inadvertently reinforcing the witness?s selection (e.g., ?That was our suspect?) will make it difficult to show that witness another lineup with a new suspect. It can be acceptable to share the results of the identification at a later time, but not before the witness?s level of certainty has been ascertained.

9. Record any identification results and witness?s statement of certainty as outlined in subsection D, Recording Identification Results.

10. Document the lineup procedures and content in writing, including?

    1. Identification information of lineup participants.

    2. Names of all persons present at the lineup.

    3. Date and time the identification procedure was conducted.

11. Document the lineup by photo or video. This documentation should be of a quality that represents the lineup clearly and fairly. Photo documentation can be of either the group or each individual.

12. Advise the witness not to discuss the identification procedure or its results with other witnesses involved in the case and discourage contact with the media.

    	Remind the witness that discussing the results of the procedure could harm the investigation. Such discussion by the witness may influence any other witnesses? identification decisions or their certainty.
    	Witnesses can be advised at this time that the positioning of the lineup members might be changed for other witnesses and that it is important to not try to influence another witness. It is important that eyewitnesses reach their decisions independently, not only for investigative purposes but also for later proceedings.

Summary: The manner in which an identification procedure is conducted can lead to later challenges to the reliability, fairness, and objectivity of the identification. Use of the above procedures can minimize such challenges.

D. Recording Identification Results

Principle: The record of the outcome of the identification procedure accurately and completely reflects the identification results obtained from the witness.

Policy: When conducting an identification procedure, the investigator should preserve the outcome of the procedure by documenting any identification or nonidentification results obtained from the witness.

Procedure: When conducting an identification procedure, the investigator should?

1. Record both identification and nonidentification results in writing, including the witness?s own words regarding how sure he/she is.

2. Ensure results are signed and dated by the witness.

3. Ensure that no materials indicating previous identification results are visible to the witness.

4. Ensure that the witness does not write on or mark any materials that will be used in other identification procedures.

   In jurisdictions where it is required that a witness sign the back of a selected photo, ensure that the signed photo is not used in a later identification procedure.

Summary: A complete and accurate record of the outcome of the identification procedure can be a critical document in the investigation and any subsequent court proceedings.