A woman was raped. After the rape, she went to her doctor's office. The man suspected of committing the rape
was brought to the doctor's office. He was presented to the woman for identification. The court felt that the
possibility to make a mistake in identification was great because of--
o
Emotional anguish.
o
Trauma.
o
Surrounding environment.
The case of Stanley v. Cox, 486 F. 2d 48 (4th CIR 1973) is different. The court accepted the identification as
reliable in this case. The circumstances of this case were as follows:
One hour after a robbery, a suspect was brought to the scene. The store owner identified the suspect.
Let's examine the differences between the first and second cases. The major differences were:
o
The state of emotional upset in the rape case was greater than in the robbery.
o
The store owner saw the suspect at the scene. The rape victim was not at the scene when shown the
suspect.
There are no "hard and fast" rules to use for one-on-one identifications. You must use your common sense every
time. You must consider the "totality of the circumstances" when considering a one-on-one identification.
Identification procedures can result in evidence that could convict someone of a crime. Consequently, any
violation of rights due a person could result in evidence being inadmissible in court.
PART C - PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
So far our discussion has focused heavily on the constitutional protection given to persons being searched or
identified. We have examined a variety of situations. Some of the situations discussed have been--
o
Searches that require search authorization.
o
Searches incident to apprehension.
o
"Stop and frisk" searches.
The next topic of discussion will be search and seizure under the rules of the Plain View Doctrine.
MP2002
1-42
Previous Page
