Policemen - how should you investigate this?

This is in relation to the Duke Rape Case that’s been talked about, but I’d like to propose a hypothetical situation just to examine one aspect of the investigation.

You are called to respond to a report of a crime being committed. The accuser claims that a crime has been committed against his person by someone in an identified house/apartment/hotel room. The accuser doesn’t know the name of his assailant, but there is a decent probability that the person is still at the location.

My question is, would you require the identification to take place as part of a structured lineup, with fillers, or would you ask the accuser to go with you to the location and point out the assailant, or would you do something entirely different? Would it matter if the location was a party with 30+ attendees?

I was near the scene of a burglary and saw a man walking away from the area. He was “known to police” and they picked him up a block away.

Even though I was just around the corner, they never took me to see the guy. They drove me downtown to give a statement which inlcuded a description, then they showed me a bunch of digital photo printouts and I was able to pick him out immediately.

Never had to go to court or anything. The guy just confessed and told the cops where he’d hidden the money he’d taken.

Depends on how long ago the crime occurred.

If someone calls the cops from a pay phone to say that some guy down the street just mugged him then a statement and description is taken. While the officer is talking with the victim, another officer or officers go find the guy. Then, with the suspect in custody, the first officer can put the victim in the back seat of the car and drive him over to identify the suspect. He’ll park a safe but close enough distance away, and the other guys will make the suspect stand up and face the direction of the car.
If the victim says “Yup, that’s him”, it is a positive ID.

This is probably not relevant to the Duke Case. I never paid much attention to it, cause I dont care about it.

That’s exactly how it goes. I have done this several times.

The complainant needs to have a better description than “it was somebody over there”. If he can’t verbally describe the suspect enough to narrow down your suspects from the 30 in the room then any identification probably won’t hold up latter anyway. So I would get a description and see if anyone in the location fits it. If so I would see if there was a positive identification. Or at least some eveidence to continue the investigation. If it is a serious crime everyone is going to be held for questioning anyway.

I passed the OP along to a police officer, here’s his response:


The answer is that it is not a simple answer but here goes…

In the scenario you provided, I would contact the victim and ask for a description of the house and the suspect. I would then have him point out the house to me. If its a case where there is a party with 30 guests, I would take the “victim” with me to see if he could point out the “suspect”. If its a misdemeanor, I would only do this if the victim wanted to do this and if he wanted to press charges. If its a felony, I would try to talk the victim into doing it and we will arrest on most felonies whether the victim wants to press charges or not. At that point, if the victim and I go to the location and the victim points out the suspect, I would contact the suspect and get a statement, issue a cite or make an arrest depending on the circumstances.

It should be noted that if the crime is serious and just occurred, I can enter a home without warrant under the “fresh pursuit” doctrine. If some time has passed or it is a minor crime, I may need a warrant to enter. Or if I know the suspect’s identity I can list him as a suspect in the crime report and either a warrant will be issued for his arrest later or he will be given a date to go to court. So much depends on the type of crime: “He slapped me” vs. “He just shot my brother in the face” and everywhere in between.

If it is just a single occupant or just a few people in the home, I would probably knock on the door (as long as its a standard crime and not an attempted murder or something to that degree) and try to detain the person who matched the suspect description without the victim being present. Once the situation appeared safe and the suspect was detained, I would have a partner read the victim the “witness admonition statement” then do what is called a “field show-up”.

The witness admonition statement tells the victim that just because the police are detaining someone it does not mean they commited the crime. The victim is under no obligation to identify anyone and if the person the police are detaining is not the suspect then the police will continue looking for the suspect. This only needs to be read when a suspect is being detained by police and it usually only occurs right after the crime occurs and police are in “fresh pursuit” of the suspect. It did not have to be done in the earlier scenario because when the victim goes with the officer to point someone out, there are no suspects being detained by police at that time.

If the victim identifies the person I’m detaining as the suspect, I can take the suspect’s statement, issue a citation or make an arrest just like the previous example.

The Line-ups or Six-packs (also known as “photo line-ups”) are usually not used right after the crime occurred so it is rarely done by patrol officers. It is usually done at a later date by detectives. Physical line-ups that you see in the movies are rarely ever used at my department (or any that I know of) but photo six-packs are done all the time. They serve the same purpose. A six-pack is when you believe you identified the suspect but the victim has not identified the suspect yet. The detective takes a photo of the suspect than finds five similar photos and puts them together. The detective then goes to the victim and asks the victim to identify the suspect. This is done because it would be considered leading the victim if the detective only took the one photograph to the victim and said, “Is this the guy who did it?”

An example of the photo line-up being used would be if in your above scenario the victim pointed out the house but when police arrived nobody was home so the victim could not identify anyone. The officer would leave and write a crime report for the detectives to follow-up on. A week later, detectives find out that four people live in the house and based on the victim’s suspect description, they feel one of the four residents is the suspect because he matches the description. They obtain the suspect’s photo then do the six-pack and go to the victim. If the victim chooses the suspect photo, then detectives have a legit suspect. If the victim says he does not recognize any of them or if he chooses one of the random photos, then detectives may rule out their “suspect” as not being the suspect afterall. Maybe they will go on to question the residents about guests they had over that night.

Hope all this info helped!


On preview, this pretty much matches what Loach said as well.

But I said it a lot quicker. :stuck_out_tongue:

The only problem I have with what your friend told you is that I would try very hard to not bring the victim in contact with the suspect. I would bring the suspect or suspects to the victim but in a way that there isn’t a confrontation such as the previous scenerio using the patrol car. Remember this is the fresh victim of a serious crime. They don’t need to have any more conflict so close to a traumatic event. You also don’t want the suspect or their friends trying to intimidate the victim while the Id is being made. Just glaring in an intimidating manner may further traumatize the victim or blow your ID. That’s not even mentioning the inevitable screaming after the victim says “that’s him”.

[painting with broad, constitutional-rights lovin’ brush]
There’s another reason that cops use photo id’s rather than line-ups. A suspect has a constitutional right to have his attorney present during a lineup, which effectively prevents any “hijinks.” There is no right to have an attorney present during a photo id. Instead, the witness goes into the room with the cop, the door closes, something happens, the witness comes out having identified the suspect.

There are some pretty persuasive arguments that, for the same reason an attorney should be present during a lineup, an attorney should be present during a photo id.

[/painting with broad, constitutional-rights lovin’ brush]

Yeah, I wondered about that a bit myself, however I trust my cousin to make the right decision under varying circumstances. FWIW I was involved in an incident and got to sit in the back of a cruiser and identify a suspect. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen stuff on film (OK, “COPS” isn’t the best source of info but take it for what it’s worth) where officers do in fact have the victim point out the suspect up close (rather than from the back seat of a car), there are probably circumstances where it’d make some sort of sense and others (one officer, one suspect, 50 angry friends) where it’d be a bad idea.

So the accuser chooses the one who most closest matches who she saw, dispite the fact she never had a good look…

So the “six-pack” is not a test of the accuser’s credibility as much as it is a tool to establish whether the police and the accuser are in concurrence?

I’m not sure what you mean. Of course one of the pictures has to be of the suspect. Otherwise you would have to have 300 million envelopes. Despite what is shown on TV, an eyewitness is sometimes the least reliable source. Sometimes it is all you have to go on and you have to work with what you got. If the suspect fled the scene and can not be identified then you have to find them by some other means. Sometimes you have evidence pointing to one suspect but not enough probable cause for an arrest. Ideally you have physical or circumstantial evidence and it is corroborated by an eyewitness using the photo array. I have never seen anyone going through stacks of mugshots except on TV. The closest thing to that is when a witness says the suspect goes to school with him but doesn’t know the name. Then they are given on of the recent high school yearbooks to see if they can identify them.

Our photo arrays are taped and transcribed. If the witness isn’t 100% sure of the identification that is pretty clear. A partial identification (“I’m 80% sure…”) can still be used for evidence but it certainly won’t get a conviction. The defense attorney also has a chance to pick apart the witness. If the only evidence is a shaky identification then there will be no arrest.

That’s typically how it’s done around here. We call it a “cold stand.”