In a State v. Reed, Mr. Ernest Reed challenged the use of a “show-up” identification in front of the Kansas Court of Appeals. A show-up identification is when officers arrest someone and put them in the backseat of a patrol car in handcuffs. The officers then request the witness to go to the scene of arrest, look in the patrol car and identify the person as the perpetrator of the crime. At the trial court level, the judge admitted the evidence of the show-up eyewitness identification and Mr. Reed was convicted. On appeal, Mr. Reed argues the identification should have been suppressed because it unfairly suggests his guilt. If a witness is shown a person in all the trappings of law enforcement: backseat of a police car, handcuffs, with the implied assertion that the police certainly think they’ve got the right person, then the risk of a faulty eyewitness identification skyrockets.
The Kansas Court of Appeals begins its analysis by admitting it “has not favored show-up identifications absent exigent circumstances.” The court uses a two-step test to determine the admissibility of the identification. First, the court examines the procedure employed to determine whether it is unnecessarily suggestive. If an unnecessary suggestive procedure was used, the court will next determine whether there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
In this case, shortly after a Mr. Orabuena was robbed, police arrested Mr. Reed. He was handcuffed and placed alone in the back of the police car. Police called Mr. Orabuena and had him return to an area near where he was robbed only a short time earlier. Mr. Orabuena was asked if the man in the car was one one of his assailants. At trial, he was still very angry when police asked him to make the identification. There was no evidence to explain why this identification did not take place at the police station.
As a result, the Kansas Court of Appeals agrees that there was sufficient evidence to find the procedure used to identify Mr. Reed was unnecessarily suggestive. Therefore, the court moves on to analyze the second step of the analysis. The court considers the totality of the circumstances, including various factors, to consider the reliability of Mr. Orabuena’s identification. Even though Mr. Orabuena was only able to describe his assailants as “two black males,” the court found sufficient facts showing Mr. Orabeuna’s identification was reliable.
Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Mr. Reed’s motion to suppress the identification. A show-up eyewitness identification, as the court admits, is often unreliable and should be avoided. While the court approved of its use here, people should be aware of the fallibility of these types of eyewitness identification. If you have questions about an eyewitness identification and wish to speak to an attorney, contact Bell Folsom, P.A.