R.C Page 1. (1) Administrator means the person conducting a photo lineup or live lineup.

Similar documents
EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION MODEL POLICY

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff : CASE NO CR 00706

DELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT

Virginia Beach Police Department General Order Chapter 8 - Criminal Investigations

JAN shown that eyewitness identification procedures currently used. by law enforcement officials may lead to faulty eyewitness

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION REFORM ACT

SECTION: OPERATIONS OPR-229A EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS

THURMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT

East Haven Police Department

LAST UPDATE: POLICY SOURCE: Chief of Police TOTAL PAGES: 7

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES

Contemporary Issues in Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Working Group EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION Model Policy February 2016

NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES BENCHBOOK VOIR DIRE ON PRETRIAL AND IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS:

ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

REPORT OF THE CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

The first of these contains the FAQs concerning the main document.

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION

BILL AS INTRODUCED AND PASSED BY SENATE AND HOUSE S Page 1 of 11. Subject: Crimes; innocence protection; eyewitness identification

Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court.

COVINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

Identification Procedures

Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association LINE-UP AND SHOW-UP PROCEDURES (Eyewitness Identification) MODEL POLICY GENERAL ORDER

TYPE OF ORDER NUMBER/SERIES ISSUE DATE EFFECTIVE DATE General Order /3/2013 5/5/2013

New York State Photo Identification Guidelines

The People of the State of New York. against. Ismael Nazario, Defendant.

Eyewitness Identification. Leader Guide

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY FERLO, STOUT, GREENLEAF, COSTA, KITCHEN, STACK AND FONTANA, APRIL 9, 2007 AN ACT

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N. In accordance with the parties plea-bargain agreement, the trial court

Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Legal Director. A Day in the Life of a PD Lightstream Communications CLE

COMMONWEALTH vs. SCOTT E. FIELDING. No. 18-P-342. Dukes. November 13, January 29, Present: Milkey, Henry, & Englander, JJ.

Eyewitness refers to an individual who personally witnessed the crime under investigation or observed the suspect in the area of the crime scene.

Innocence Protections Proposal

AN ACT BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTIONA1.AAChapter 2, Code of Criminal Procedure, is

LSA-C.Cr.P. Art Art Definitions

Section: 2.310, Page 1 of 10 Effective: August 5, 2011 Reissued: 08/25/16. Towson University Police Department Manual of General Directives

15 M.R.S.A Definitions. Currentness

Jeffrey I. Dellheim, for appellant. Patrick J. Hynes, for respondent. In this case, turning on the accuracy of eyewitnesses'

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/03/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 379 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2014. Exhibit C

Case 3:16-cr BR Document 976 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Jan Hoth, for appellant. Meredith Boylan, for respondent. Innocence Project, Inc.; Legal Aid Society et al., amici curiae.

v No Wayne Circuit Court

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008

Supreme Court significantly revised the framework for determining the. 221, 590 P2d 1198 (1979), in light of current scientific research and adopt[ed]

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: TIMOTHY G. DUGAN, Judge. Affirmed.

A NEW STRATEGY FOR PREVENTING WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

Police Ride Alongs. In This Issue: Photograph Lineup. Pedestrian Infraction. Marijuana Odor on a Person

COMMONWEALTH vs. KYLE L. JOHNSON. Plymouth. October 6, February 12, 2016.

STATE OF OHIO KIRKLAND FARMER

I Saw You but Did I Really?:

2005 WISCONSIN ACT 60

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : GEORGE VINCENT KUBIS, : : Appellant : No.

SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Expert Eyewitness Testimony. By: Janine M. Kovacs

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF VAN WERT COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION LOCAL RULES. [Revised Effective January 15, 2016] LOCAL RULE 1

Third District Court of Appeal

THAT S THE GUY! : FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 801(d)(1)(C) AND OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS OF IDENTIFICATION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC FRANK HERNANDEZ. Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

2018COA6. No. 15CA1395 People v. Palacios Criminal Law Fifth Amendment Pre-Trial Identification; Evidence Demonstrative Evidence Admissibility

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BARION PERRY, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Respondent. REPLY BRIEF

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. EFFECTIVE DATE: 1 January 1999 PAGE 1 OF 12

2019COA32. A division of the court of appeals considers whether two guilty. pleas entered at the same hearing to two charges brought in

Constitution; Article I, Sections 19, 21, 23, 27, and 36, and Article XI, Section 2 of the. of and. A Rule 24 hearing was held on December 8,

OUTLINE OF CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS

California Bar Examination

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

Case 2:13-cv Document Filed in TXSD on 11/17/14 Page 1 of 9. Ga. Code Ann., Page 1. Effective: January 26, 2006

GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TIMOTHY PERRI

The. Department of Police Services

SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Mark W. Moseley, Judge. April 5, 2018

Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO.: 3D THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs-

As used in this chapter, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following

E. Expert Testimony Issue. 1. Defendants may assert that before any photographs or video evidence from a camera

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Agee, and Goodwyn, JJ., and Lacy, S.J.

PART I INTRODUCTORY MATTERS AND TERMINOLOGY 1

Two Windows into Innocence

CRIMINAL, TRAFFIC, CIVIL AND SMALL CLAIM RULES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION

The purpose of this policy to establish guidelines for release and dissemination of public information to news media.

Michael Stewart v. State of Maryland - No. 79, 1995 Term

Court of Appeals of Ohio

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-1346 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL GREGORY SKIPPER FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *

DONALOL.~ARaAECHT. LAWlIiRARY. Before the court is defendant's motion to suppress both the out of court

ROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

JEFFERSON COLLEGE COURSE SYLLABUS CRJ114 RULES OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE. 3 credit hours. Prepared by: Mark A. Byington

- against- Indictment No.: Defendant.

Transcription:

R.C. 2933.83 Page 1 Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated Currentness Title XXIX. Crimes--Procedure (Refs & Annos) Chapter 2933. Peace Warrants; Search Warrants (Refs & Annos) Evidentiary Provisions 2933.83 Minimum requirements for live lineup or photo lineup procedures (A) As used in this section: (1) Administrator means the person conducting a photo lineup or live lineup. (2) Blind administrator means the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect. Blind administrator includes an administrator who conducts a photo lineup through the use of a folder system or a substantially similar system. (3) Blinded administrator means the administrator may know who the suspect is, but does not know which lineup member is being viewed by the eyewitness. Blinded administrator includes an administrator who conducts a photo lineup through the use of a folder system or a substantially similar system. (4) Eyewitness means a person who observes another person at or near the scene of an offense. (5) Filler means either a person or a photograph of a person who is not suspected of an offense and is included in an identification procedure. (6) Folder system means a system for conducting a photo lineup that satisfies all of the following: (a) The investigating officer uses one suspect photograph that resembles the description of the suspected perpetrator of the offense provided by the eyewitness, five filler photographs of persons not suspected of the offense that match the description of the suspected perpetrator but do not cause the suspect photograph to unduly stand out, four blank photographs that contain no images of any person, and ten empty folders. (b) The investigating officer places one filler photograph into one of the empty folders and numbers it as folder 1. (c) The administrator places the suspect photograph and the other four filler photographs into five other empty folders, shuffles the five folders so that the administrator is unaware of which folder contains the suspect photograph, and numbers the five shuffled folders as folders 2 through 6.

R.C. 2933.83 Page 2 (d) The administrator places the four blank photographs in the four remaining empty folders and numbers these folders as folders 7 through 10, and these folders serve as dummy folders. (e) The administrator provides instructions to the eyewitness as to the lineup procedure and informs the eyewitness that a photograph of the alleged perpetrator of the offense may or may not be included in the photographs the eyewitness is about to see and that the administrator does not know which, if any, of the folders contains the photograph of the alleged perpetrator. The administrator also shall instruct the eyewitness that the administrator does not want to view any of the photographs and will not view any of the photographs and that the eyewitness may not show the administrator any of the photographs. The administrator shall inform the eyewitness that if the eyewitness identifies a photograph as being the person the eyewitness saw the eyewitness shall identify the photograph only by the number of the photograph's corresponding folder. (f) The administrator hands each of the ten folders to the eyewitness individually without looking at the photograph in the folder. Each time the eyewitness has viewed a folder, the eyewitness indicates whether the photograph is of the person the eyewitness saw, indicates the degree of the eyewitness's confidence in this identification, and returns the folder and the photograph it contains to the administrator. (g) The administrator follows the procedures specified in this division for a second viewing if the eyewitness requests to view each of the folders a second time, handing them to the eyewitness in the same order as during the first viewing; the eyewitness is not permitted to have more than two viewings of the folders; and the administrator preserves the order of the folders and the photographs they contain in a facedown position in order to document the steps specified in division (A)(6)(h) of this section. (h) The administrator documents and records the results of the procedure described in divisions (A)(6)(a) to (f) of this section before the eyewitness views each of the folders a second time and before the administrator views any photograph that the eyewitness identifies as being of the person the eyewitness saw. The documentation and record includes the date, time, and location of the lineup procedure; the name of the administrator; the names of all of the individuals present during the lineup; the number of photographs shown to the eyewitness; copies of each photograph shown to the eyewitness; the order in which the folders were presented to the witness; the source of each photograph that was used in the procedure; a statement of the eyewitness's confidence in the eyewitness's own words as to the certainty of the eyewitness's identification of the photographs as being of the person the eyewitness saw that is taken immediately upon the reaction of the eyewitness to viewing the photograph; and any additional information the administrator considers pertinent to the lineup procedure. If the eyewitness views each of the folders a second time, the administrator shall document and record the statement of the eyewitness's confidence in the eyewitness's own words as to the certainty of the eyewitness's identification of a photograph as being of the person the eyewitness saw and document that the identification was made during a second viewing of each of the folders by the eyewitness. (i) The administrator shall not say anything to the eyewitness or give any oral or nonverbal cues as to whether or not the eyewitness identified the suspect photograph until the administrator documents and records the results of the procedure described in divisions (A)(6)(a) to (g) of this section and the photo lineup has concluded.

R.C. 2933.83 Page 3 (7) Live lineup means an identification procedure in which a group of persons, including the suspected perpetrator of an offense and other persons not suspected of the offense, is displayed to an eyewitness for the purpose of determining whether the eyewitness identifies the suspect as the perpetrator of the offense. (8) Photo lineup means an identification procedure in which an array of photographs, including a photograph of the suspected perpetrator of an offense and additional photographs of other persons not suspected of the offense, is displayed to an eyewitness for the purpose of determining whether the eyewitness identifies the suspect as the perpetrator of the offense. (9) Perpetrator means the person who committed the offense. (10) Suspect means the person believed by law enforcement to be the possible perpetrator of the offense. (B) Prior to conducting any live lineup or photo lineup on or after the effective date of this section, any law enforcement agency or criminal justice entity in this state that conducts live lineups or photo lineups shall adopt specific procedures for conducting the lineups. The procedures, at a minimum, shall impose the following requirements: (1) Unless impracticable, a blind or blinded administrator shall conduct the live lineup or photo lineup. (2) When it is impracticable for a blind administrator to conduct the live lineup or photo lineup, the administrator shall state in writing the reason for that impracticability. (3) When it is impracticable for either a blind or blinded administrator to conduct the live lineup or photo lineup, the administrator shall state in writing the reason for that impracticability. (4) The administrator conducting the lineup shall make a written record that includes all of the following information: (a) All identification and nonidentification results obtained during the lineup, signed by the eyewitnesses, including the eyewitnesses' confidence statements made immediately at the time of the identification; (b) The names of all persons present at the lineup; (c) The date and time of the lineup; (d) Any eyewitness identification of one or more fillers in the lineup;

R.C. 2933.83 Page 4 (e) The names of the lineup members and other relevant identifying information, and the sources of all photographs or persons used in the lineup. (5) If a blind administrator is conducting the live lineup or the photo lineup, the administrator shall inform the eyewitness that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup and that the administrator does not know who the suspect is. (C) For any photo lineup or live lineup that is administered on or after the effective date of this section, all of the following apply: (1) Evidence of a failure to comply with any of the provisions of this section or with any procedure for conducting lineups that has been adopted by a law enforcement agency or criminal justice agency pursuant to division (B) of this section and that conforms to any provision of divisions (B)(1) to (5) of this section shall be considered by trial courts in adjudicating motions to suppress eyewitness identification resulting from or related to the lineup. (2) Evidence of a failure to comply with any of the provisions of this section or with any procedure for conducting lineups that has been adopted by a law enforcement agency or criminal justice agency pursuant to division (B) of this section and that conforms to any provision of divisions (B)(1) to (5) of this section shall be admissible in support of any claim of eyewitness misidentification resulting from or related to the lineup as long as that evidence otherwise is admissible. (3) When evidence of a failure to comply with any of the provisions of this section, or with any procedure for conducting lineups that has been adopted by a law enforcement agency or criminal justice agency pursuant to division (B) of this section and that conforms to any provision of divisions (B)(1) to (5) of this section, is presented at trial, the jury shall be instructed that it may consider credible evidence of noncompliance in determining the reliability of any eyewitness identification resulting from or related to the lineup. (D) The requirements in this section regarding the procedures for live lineups or photo lineups conducted by a law enforcement agency or criminal justice entity do not prohibit a law enforcement agency or criminal justice entity from adopting other scientifically accepted procedures for conducting live lineups or photo lineups that the scientific community considers more effective. CREDIT(S) (2010 S 77, eff. 7-6-10) Current through 2010 File 31 of the 128th GA (2009-2010), apv. by 5/11/10 and filed with the Secretary of State by 5/11/10. (c) 2010 Thomson Reuters

R.C. 2933.83 Page 5 END OF DOCUMENT