Improving the Police Lineup Identification Process

This paper discusses the guidelines for improving the police lineup identification process, the downfalls of the procedure, and better ways to assist in the process of suspect identification. It also covers the subject of eyewitness identification, legal theory, and the related judgment processes. The course code, course name, and college/university are not mentioned.

Running head: police lineup identification process 1
Police lineup identification process
Student’s Name
University Affliation

police lineup identification process 2
Abstract
This paper will discuss the proper procedural guidelines which are suggested to be
followed to improve the process of police line-up identification, the downfalls of the procedure
and any better way which can be used to assist in the process of suspect identification

police lineup identification process 3
Police lineup identification process
Police line-up identification process presents a critical moment when an eyewitness
inspects a lineup and identifies a criminal. For the past two decades, psychological scientists
have given recommendable time in the study of eyewitness identification and have come up with
several concerns regarding the accuracy of the whole process of eyewitness identification
subjected to different conditions. In scientific psychology study, the scientific research of
eyewitness has been the most successful topic so far. False identification of a criminal can lead
to the prosecution of the wrong person in the long run (Roach, 2015).
Evidence Act 1929 in South Australia has an amendment bill proposing that identity
evidence is allowed in court when its obtained than through the live line-up procedures. A strict
approach to the process is necessary because there has been significant mistaken identification.
The problem arising from convicting culprits from the lineup identification is that the eyewitness
memory may suffer from time to time, or the memory is corrupted through various images on the
eyewitness mind at that particular time. Then, the eyewitness ends up been wrong most of the
time (Wixted,et al 2017).
According to the Uniform Evidence Act, the common law requires to have a provision
for admissibility of the identification evidence. Section 114(a) states the general rule that no
proof of visual identification can be used the court if no parade was held before. This extensive
evidence rule has two exceptions where the defendant is not willing to be part of such an
exercise or when it was deemed unnecessary to hold such a task. The process of line-up parade
serves a vital role in a defendant’s fair trial because the evidence is identifiable and failure can
lead to a breach of the defendant’s testimony (Wixted,et al 2016).

police lineup identification process 4
According to legal theory, different safe ways are assumed to be in place within the
whole justice system to prevent failures of justice which may occur in the form of the mistaken
identification procedure. These safe ways also do not provide enough information in to be used
for protection. The safe ways include the presence of the counsel of jury at the live line-ups.
Several factors are put in consideration before the identification process is considered fail, which
includes; proper examination of the eyewitness, any opportunity that can suppress the
identification process, and all the expert details of the factors that can affect the memory of the
eyewitness at any given time (Wetmore, et al 2015).
The process of formulating guidelines for police line-up identification is not new in the
justice system, over a decade now a significant number of legal practitioners have requested the
police to get proper documentation on the process of line up identification of perpetrators (Wells,
et al 1998).
Preferred practice guidelines in police line- up.
Proper lineup documentation includes a nice crafted checklist which includes:
There is no line-up which needs to proceed when there are no legal advisory services
considered.
No line procedure should proceed without a representative from the jury.
All the people represented for the identification line should share a similar age bracket,
physical characteristics, and racial group (Wells, et al 1998).
All the movement or any facial expressions should be uniform for all the people in the
line-up.
Any communication between the law enforcement officers and the people in the line-up
should be limited not unless it is unavoidable.

police lineup identification process 5
No facial expression, gestures, or talking to the witness to suggest a particular place
where the witness is standing (Wells, et al 1998).
If more than one witness is viewing the line-up, the parties should not be able to see each
to other discuss anything about the identification process unless the exercise is over.
Witnesses should not in any particular chance be allowed to see the suspect in handcuffs
or custody or in any other form that indicates the identity of the suspect (Wells, et al 1998).
It is only one witness should be allowed for identification at one particular time.
All witness should not be allowed to see any photographs taken during the line-up
exercise.
Eyewitnesses should be allowed ample time before identification with no pressure or
stressful situations so that it does not affect their thinking.
All the suspects have the freedom to choose where to stand in the line-up with no
discrimination (Wells, et al 1998).
In case one of the suspects wants to speak or adopt a different standing posture they
should seek permission from the officer in charge of the parade
By any chance If the eyewitness cannot be able to identify any suspect should be able to
say so in good time.
The eyewitness may be in apposition to identify a person who was maybe near a crime
scene; they should indicate the number above them appropriately (Wells, et al 1998).
A photo board preparation.
Any party requesting a photo board should be able to follow the right procedures, fill and
submit the ACT on photo board request including the suspect’s full name, date of birth, the

police lineup identification process 6
offence committed, and an indication that the suspect has been offered a free will to participate in
the line-up identification. This form should also contain details of the co-offenders if any and the
desired number of witnesses that will be allowed to access the photo board. During the
investigation and inspection of the photo board, an independent party should be selected to
perform the exercise. After the research, the proper marking of the photo board is necessary, and
procedural analysis of the evidence put in place (National Research Council. 2015).
All identification rules and regulations should be followed to the later to promote the
credibility of the exercise. The process of suspect identification should have proper security
measures including the safeguarding materials and any voice print identification. All the
identification materials should be recorded and separated those of the adults and the children in
case different age groups are involved in the procedure (Neil, 2011). There is a proper recording
of identification materials to show that the process was lawful and be referred back during the
court session of the particular case. After the procedure, adequate disposal channels has to be put
in place that includes the proper destruction of the identification materials to make sure they do
not know land in the wrong hands and cause information privacy breach (Lindsay, et al 2014).
The related judgement processes.
The above line –up identification recommendation is based on the psychological theory
of human memory and the social influence on it, scientific findings, and the logic of
identification and testing (Laura, et al 2012).The most important approach in psychology is the
memory theory, and this depends heavily on relative judgement theory. The related judgement
methods guide us to have the patience of directing eyewitnesses in a particular way. Research
shows that there is a high possibility that the eyewitness will most likely identify the individual
from the line-up that is likely resembles the culprit (Wells, et al 2014). This whole process of

police lineup identification process 7
identification may seem obvious, but in most cases, it turns out false when the culprit is not in
the identification line-up.
Relative judgement contrasts with absolute sense whereby in the complete review the
witnesses view the culprits and tries comparing with their memory and uses that criteria in
identifying the culprit. The study shows that relative judgement and process of culprit
identification gives the best idea in identifying the perpetrators. In cases where the eyewitnesses
are used to making a relative decision then, they should be warned when there is the removal
without replacement which states that the culprit is not in the line-up (Memon, 2017).
The relative similarity theory argues that the process and the decision of identifying a
perpetrator from a line-up are dependent on relative judgement, there is a possibility that there is
a resemblance of the culprits would significantly affect the identification process and the
confidence levels of the eyewitness.
On the contrary, there is a psychological, legal suggestion that identification using
photographs as reliable as the line-up identification process.
There is another way of line-up identification which is known as the police evidence, in
police evidence appointees with no relationship with the witness and may be able to identify the
suspects are involved and use direct observation as a way of determining the suspects. After the
process, the appointee must make a comprehensive report that they were able to locate the
suspect and be treated as a witness by all the parties (Fitzgerald, et al 2015). In extreme cases,
the identification procedure would require expert identification evidence which will include
sampling of the fingerprints, handwriting, facial recognition and maybe voice print identification
techniques. These expert identification techniques are a way of enhancing the procedure of line-
up identification to achieve the best results in the whole case.

police lineup identification process 8
The problems associated with police line-up identification.
There is a very crucial issue surrounding the police identification process such that the
police officers can signal the eyewitness to where the suspect is located or standing. Individuals
who are not the suspects may not be in resemblance with the description of the eyewitness.
Another problem is that the eyewitness may be scared or feel more pressure in identifying the
suspect in the line-up (Beaudry, et al 2015).
The rights and freedoms of the suspects in the line-up.
All the suspects in a police line-up have a right to an attorney which may interfere with
the critical stage of suspect identification. If a suspect had a lawyer and they are absent during
the identification procedure, then the lawyer can interfere with the process for the better of his or
her client. A lawyer is critical in the identification procedure to prevent any bias activity from
happening during the whole exercise. A suspect has a right to enjoy the freedom from a
suggestion. This means that the suspects are free from an identification process that is
unnecessarily suggestive, a law enforcement officer should not force a witness to identify a
particular person in the line-up (Gronlund, et al 2014).
All the suspects can enjoy the freedom of suppression which is requested by the lawyer
of the suspect and given an opportunity to discuss the occurrences of the identification process.
The line-up procedure is a daily routine for the police suspect identification procedure,
but the process of using a DNA evidence has on several occasions outweighed the latter down.
The use of DNA is the most accurate way of suspect identification because it presents results
with over 98 per cent accuracy (Fielding, 2017).

police lineup identification process 9
Conclusion.
Police line-up identification is a simple suspect identification process which is the
evidence in the process of identifying culprits; although it has its downfalls like the cases of
wrong identification of the suspect, there is still so much that can be done to make the exercise a
better one (Charman, et al 2014). Proper policies and document rules and regulations governing
the whole line-up exercise should be in place for effective identification procedure.

police lineup identification process 10
References
Beaudry, J. L., Lindsay, R. C., Leach, A. M., Mansour, J. K., Bertrand, M. I., & Kalmet,
N. (2015). The effect of evidence type, identification accuracy, line‐up presentation, and line‐up
administration on observers' perceptions of eyewitnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology,
20(2), 343-364.
Charman, S., & Wells, G. L. (2014). Applied lineup theory. Handbook Of Eyewitness
Psychology 2 Volume Set, 219.
Fielding, N. (2017). The police and social conflict. Routledge-Cavendish.
Fitzgerald, R. J., & Price, H. L. (2015). Eyewitness identification across the life span: A
meta-analysis of age differences. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1228.
Gronlund, S. D., Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification
procedures using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 23(1), 3-10.
Laura Smalarz and Gary L Wells, ‘Eyewitness-Identification Evidence: Scientific
Advances and the New Burden on Trial Judges’ (2012) 48 Court Review 14-48.
Lindsay, R. C. L., & Dysart, J. E. (2014). Show-up identifications: Suggestive technique
or reliable method?. In Handbook Of Eyewitness Psychology 2 Volume Set (pp. 151-168).
Routledge.
Memon, A. (2017). Eyewitness research: Theory and practice. In Psychology and Law
(pp. 65-78). Routledge.
National Research Council. (2015). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness
identification. National Academies Press.

police lineup identification process 11
Neil Brewer, Pictures Perfect: Why Photo Lineups Can Be Better At Catching Crooks (26
May 2011) The Conversation http://theconversation.edu.au/pictures-perfect-why-photo-lineups-
can-be-better-at-catching-crooks-1217; Winmar v WA (2007) 35 WAR 159.
Roach, K. (2015). The wrongful conviction of Indigenous people in Australia and
Canada. Flinders LJ, 17, 203.
Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A.
E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and
photospreads. Law and Human behavior, 22(6), 603.
Wells, G. L., Yang, Y., & Smalarz, L. (2015). Eyewitness identification: Bayesian
information gain, base-rate effect equivalency curves, and reasonable suspicion. Law and Human
Behavior, 39.
Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Gronlund, S. D., Wooten, A., Goodsell, C. A., &
Carlson, C. A. (2015). Effect of retention interval on showup and lineup performance. Journal of
Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(1), 8-14. (2), 99.
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., Dunn, J. C., Clark, S. E., & Wells, W. (2016). Estimating the
reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 113(2), 304-309.
Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and
identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(1), 10-
65.

police lineup identification process 12