Eyewitness Identification

Policy: Eyewitness Identification

Author: Chief Joseph M. Hallman

WILEAG Standard: 6.3.7

Issue Date: October 31, 2012

Reviewed Date: March 24, 2026

Revised Date: March 24, 2026

 

Purpose:

To establish guidelines for the use of eyewitness identification procedures involving photo arrays, live lineups, showups, & facial composites, as prescribed in Wis. Stat. 175.50(2).  Further, to reduce the risk of wrongful conviction of innocent persons while increasing the probability of convicting the guilty persons. (6.3.7)

Eyewitness identification has always been a powerful tool for investigating and prosecuting criminal cases.  Eyewitness evidence can be the most important and convincing evidence in a case.  Research and nationwide experience suggest that eyewitness evidence can be fragile, and that eyewitnesses can be mistaken.  Eyewitnesses can make identification errors, but those errors may be difficult to detect, because the witnesses are sincere and have no motive to lie.  When wrong, they usually are not being deceitful, but are simply mistaken. 

Policy:

To reduce the risk of wrongful conviction and aid in the detection and apprehension of the guilty, officers should adhere to procedures set forth here in order to maximize the reliability of identifications, minimize unjust accusations of innocent persons and to establish evidence that is reliable and conforms to established legal procedure.  Per Wis. Stat. 175.50(3), this policy will be reviewed on a biannual basis and indicate that review by updating the “Review Date: above. (6.3.7)

Definitions:

1. Photo Array- the sequential showing of multiple photographs to an eyewitness for the purpose of obtaining an identification.

 

2. Live Lineup- the presentation of a number of individuals, including a suspect, sequentially before an eyewitness.

 

3. Showup- the presentation of one suspect to an eyewitness within a short time following commission of a crime.

Procedures (6.3.7):

1. Photo Arrays General Considerations
   1.  Prepare before any photo array.  There should be some credible and/or verifiable indication that the suspect is actually the perpetrator before placement in an identification procedure.
   2. Choose non-suspect fillers that fit the witness’s description and that minimize any suggestiveness that might point toward a suspect
   3. Use ‘double blind’ procedures, in which the administrator is not in a position to unintentionally influence the witness’s selection
   4. Specifically instruct eyewitnesses that the real perpetrator may or may not be present and that the administrator does not know which person is the suspect
   5. Present the suspects and fillers sequentially (one at a time) rather than simultaneously (all at once.)  This encourages absolute judgments of each person presented, because eyewitnesses are unable to see the subjects all at once and are unable to know when they have seen the last subject
   6. Assess eyewitness confidence immediately following an identification.  Carefully document a witness’s response before any feedback from law enforcement
   7. Avoid multiple identification procedures in which the same witness views the same suspect more than once.
   8. Officers should try to use at least six photographs of individuals who are reasonably similar in age, height, weight and general appearance and of the same sex and race
   9. Whenever possible, avoid mixing color and black and white photos
   10. Use photos of the same size and basic composition
   11. Do not mix mug shots with other snapshots
   12. Do not include more than one photo of the same suspect
   13. cover any portions of mug shots or other photographs that provide identifying information on the subject
   14. Never make suggestive statements that may influence the judgment or perception of the witness
   15. Preserve the photo array, together with full information about the identification process, for future reference.
   16. Show the photo array to only one witness at a time.
2. Live Lineup General Considerations
   1. Prepare before any live lineup.  There should be some credible and/or verifiable indication that the suspect is actually the perpetrator before placement in an identification procedure.
   2. The primary investigating officer shall be responsible for
      1. scheduling the lineup on a date and at a time that is convenient for all concerned parties, to include the prosecuting attorney, defense counsel and all witnesses
      2. fulfill the necessary legal requirements for transfer of the subject to the lineup location should he be incarcerated at a detention center, make timely notice to the detention center concerning the pickup and make arrangements for picking up the prisoner
      3. making arrangements to have four to six other persons act as “fill ins” at the lineup who are of the same race, sex and approximate height, weight, age and physical appearance and who are similarly clothed.
   3. The officer in charge of conducting the lineup shall
      1. ensure that the prisoner has been informed of his right to counsel if formal charges have been made against him, and also ensure that he has the opportunity to retain counsel or request that one be provided
      2. obtain a written waiver on the prescribed departmental form should the prisoner waive his right to counsel
      3. allow counsel representing the accused sufficient time to confer with his client prior to the lineup and observe the manner in which the lineup is conducted
      4. advise the accused that he may take any position in the lineup which he prefers and may change positions prior to summoning a new witness
      5. ensure that all persons in the lineup are numbered consecutively and are referred to only by number
      6. ensure that witnesses are not permitted to see nor are they shown any photographs of the accused immediately prior to the lineup
      7. ensure that not more than one witness views the lineup at a time
      8. ensure that witnesses are not permitted to speak with one another during lineup proceedings
      9. scrupulously avoid using statements, clues, casual comments or providing unnecessary or irrelevant information that in any manner may influence the witnesses’ decision-making process or perception.
3. Showups General Considerations
   1. Some courts have suppressed identification evidence based on the use of showups due to inherent suggestiveness of the practice.  Therefore, the use of showups should be secondary in preference to the use of photo arrays or lineups when possible.  However, when exigent circumstance requires the use of a showup, the following guidelines should be considered:
   2. Document the eyewitness’s description carefully prior to the showup.
   3. Showups should not be conducted when the suspect is in a cell, manacled or dressed in jail clothing.
   4. Whenever practical, transport the eyewitness to the location of the suspect.  Showups should not be conducted at law enforcement headquarters or other public safety buildings.
   5. Specifically instruct eyewitnesses that the real perpetrator may or may not be present.
   6. Showups should not be conducted with more than one witness present at a time.  If identification is conducted separately for more than one witness, witnesses should not be permitted to communicate before or after any procedures regarding the identification of the suspect.
   7. The same suspect should not be presented to the same witness more than once.
   8. Showup suspects should not be required to put on clothing worn by the perpetrator.  They may be asked to speak words uttered by the perpetrator or to perform other actions of the perpetrator.
   9. Words or conduct of any type by officers that may suggest to the witness that the individual is or may be the perpetrator should be scrupulously avoided.
   10. Assess eyewitness confidence immediately following an identification.
4. Facial Composite General Considerations

1. Inaccurate information from outside an eyewitness’s memory can taint development of a composite.  As with photo arrays, live lineups, and showups, composites can be compromised if the witness’s description relies on information learned from external sources after the crime; or
2. If the person administering the procedure either unintentionally supplies the witness with information or unintentionally incorporates outside knowledge of the case into the production of the composite. 
3. For this reason, when a composite is used, double-blind concepts & principles in which both the witness and the person making the composite are unaware of external information about the case may be helpful.  \
4. It may not be feasible to conduct a completely double-blind procedure for a variety of reasons, in which case witnesses should be told to rely on their independent recollection of the event - not information learned from other sources - and administrators must be mindful of any natural tendency to incorporate prior knowledge into the process.
5. In the past, the Dubuque Police Department has provided assistance with facial composites.   In the event that their services are requested, the investigating officer will incorporate double blind principles by providing only limited information necessary to begin the process and refrain from providing information during the process.  If possible, and circumstances allow, the investigating officer should consider removing him/herself from the room.