Identification on the street: a field comparison of police street identifications and video line-ups in England

Abstract

A street identification or live show-up provides an eyewitness with an opportunity to identify a suspect shortly after a crime. In England, the majority of suspects identified are subsequently included in a video line-up for the same witness to view. In Study 1, robbery squad data from three English police forces recorded 696 crimes, the identification procedures employed and prosecution decisions. A street identification was the most frequent identification procedure, being attempted in 22.7% of investigations, followed by mugshot albums (11.2%) and video line-ups (3.4%). In Study 2, data of 59 crimes were collected in which suspects, identified in a street identification, were subsequently filmed for a video line-up. Across both studies, most (84%) suspects identified in the street were subsequently identified in a video line-up, indicative of a commitment effect, in which a witness conforms to their first identification decision. All suspects identified in two procedures were eventually cautioned or charged to appear in court. The ground truth of suspect guilt in these field data cannot be determined. However, suggestions are made for reducing the likelihood of a mistaken identification of an innocent suspect caught up in an investigation; all possible steps should be taken to reduce the inherent suggestiveness of the street identification procedure.

Keywords:

• show-up
• eyewitness identification
• face recognition
• evidence
• line-up

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version.

Funding

The research in this manuscript was funded by the Nuffield Foundation [grant number AJU: 33483].

Notes

1. Due to the legal constraints on the use of show-up procedures in the UK, when referring to research and actual cases conducted in the UK, the term street identification is used. When referring to procedures and research conducted in the USA, the term show-up is used.

2. Two databases, each comprising more than 20,000 images, are maintained by two entities; West Yorkshire Police, which operates a system known as Video Identification Parade Electronic Recording (VIPER) and a commercial organisation, Promat Envision International, which operates a system known as PROMAT.

3. Some data could not be collected. These included mugshot album viewing times (these could be estimated to within 2 days). Rejected video line-ups and foil selections were listed as ‘no identifications’. Witness and suspect descriptions were also incomplete and are not reported. Explanations were collected as to why Code D was violated, why street identifications had not been attempted, who requested a video line-up and why cases were discontinued. These data will be reported separately, although if relevant, they are referred to in the discussion.

4. For the entire data-set of 696 offences, CCTV evidence was collected for 21 offences, although the quality of footage was unknown. Eight suspects were identified by police officers viewing these images. Five (62.5%) admitted guilt during interview. The other three were included in video line-ups for viewing by the original witnesses. One was identified and charged. The other two were not identified by the witness and their cases were discontinued. The remaining offences in which CCTV evidence was collected were discontinued. Witnesses also created five facial composites, none of which were identified.

5. Offences included assault (49.4%), criminal damage (15.6%), sexual offences (13.0%: sexual assault, 6.5%, indecency, 5.2%, rape, 1.3%), robbery (9.1%), theft (9.1%) and burglary (2.6%).

6. These 32 line-ups were of 29 individuals suspected of 21 different crimes. In violation of Code D, which recommends that once one witness has identified a suspect, any others should view the suspect in a video line-up; one suspect was simultaneously identified by three child witnesses in a street identification. All three witnesses also later identified the suspect in a video line-up. A further suspect was simultaneously identified by two adult witnesses in a street identification, but neither identified that suspect from a subsequent video line-up.

Additional information

Funding

Funding: The research in this manuscript was funded by the Nuffield Foundation [grant number AJU: 33483].