Showup identifications, or showups (also known as field identifications and one-on-ones), involve the presentation of a single suspect to a witness of a crime for purposes of identification. Although included with police lineups as a manner for conducting identification tests, showups serve a unique purpose in the course of a criminal investigation. Since they normally occur shortly after the crime when a suspect is found close to the crime location, showups are often used to screen potential suspects before other evidence is available. They serve to generate probable cause for arrest of the identified suspect and to discourage pursuit of false leads when the witness does not identify the suspect. Although showups have a unique investigative value, showup identifications are less reliable than those obtained from proper police lineups. This article discusses the legal and psychological perspectives of showups, as well as other relevant issues, and reviews recommendations developed by psychological scientists for conducting showup investigations.
Legal Perspectives on Showup Identifications
Showups are a commonly used identification procedure in the United States. The frequency of use of showups varies widely, with some agencies being much more likely to use showups than police lineups and others being more likely to use photographic lineups than showups. Estimates of their prevalence across U.S. law enforcement agencies range from 32% to 76% of all identification procedures. Data from the United Kingdom also support the prevalence of showup identification procedures in criminal investigations, with showups being used in over 70% of criminal investigations in which any identification procedure was conducted.
The widespread use of showups is a product of the unique investigative function they serve in comparison to other identification procedures. Showups are typically conducted early in an investigation when extrinsic evidence linking the suspect to the crime has often not been identified. This leaves a situation in which investigators do not have probable cause to initiate an arrest. A positive identification from a showup can provide investigators with the probable cause necessary to make an arrest and promote public safety by removing the potential perpetrator from the community. In addition, an accurate nonidentification from the showup can help ensure that the investigation does not get derailed by pursuing false leads.
The constitutionality of using of showups in criminal investigations has been determined through numerous U.S. court rulings (e.g., Perry v. New Hampshire, Stovall v. Denno, United States, v. Funches). This case law is consistent in finding that showups are inherently suggestive procedures and should not be used when the opportunity exists to use a proper police lineup. However, the consensus across these opinions is that showups are not unduly suggestive and the benefit of an immediate identification test outweighs any harm caused by this inherent suggestiveness. As a result, although deemed to be more suggestive than lineups, showups are deemed to be permissible identification procedures.
Psychological Perspectives on Showup Identifications
Court rulings claim that showups are more suggestive identification procedures due to two factors. First, the presentation of a single suspect to witnesses, rather than presenting the suspect among a group of fillers, provides that suspect with no protection from a witness who feels compelled to identify someone. Second, the presentation of a suspect in police custody, oftentimes detained by law enforcement officers at the scene of the crime, is perceived to increase the suggestiveness. Although the body of literature in this area is small in comparison to that conducted on other identification procedures (i.e., police lineups), psychological scientists have found evidence supporting these claims.
Lack of Protection
Most research on showups has investigated the lack of protection concern by comparing showups with police lineups. Research conducted from the 1980s through the early 2000s produced mixed results with some studies finding that showups produced less accurate decisions compared with lineups and others finding no difference in a ccuracy across the procedures. A 2003 meta-analysis of these studies suggested that the lack of protection afforded by showups may not be problematic as showups generally performed similarly to lineups when comparing correct and false suspect identifications. However, there was some evidence that showups may produce more false identifications of innocent suspects that look similar to the actual perpetrator. A 2009 reevaluation of the findings of this meta-analysis questioned the earlier interpretation and suggested that showups, in fact, produced more false identifications of innocent suspects. Research conducted through the 2000s did not produce strong evidence that the lack of protection of showups negatively affected the accuracy of the witnesses’ decisions. However, more recent research published in the early 2010s using more sensitive statistical techniques produced stronger evidence of the problems with this lack of protection, demonstrating that showups produce less accurate decisions than lineups, even if the lineups are poorly constructed and presented as much as 48 hr after the crime.
Custodial Influence
A concern routinely expressed in U.S. court decisions and among legal and scientific scholars is that the presentation of a suspect in police custody suggests to the witness that this individual is the likely perpetrator. There is very little psychological research that addresses this concern. Although some research has found that the presentation of an individual in police custody increases the witness’s perception of the likely guilt of the suspect, no published research has investigated this impact on witness identifications in showups. One unpublished study evaluated this and found that this type of presentation increases the likelihood of the witness identifying the suspect as the perpetrator regardless of whether or not she or he actually committed the crime.
Other Issues Relating to Showup Identifications
In addition to evaluating the inherent suggestiveness of showups, as compared to police lineups, psychological scientists have investigated other factors that relate to the validity of identifications obtained through this procedure. However, the body of research on each of these factors is very small, so caution is warranted when drawing conclusions.
Clothing Bias
Individuals are typically identified as possible suspects to be placed in showups when they match the physical description of the perpetrator and are found in close proximity to the scene of the crime. Factors used to determine whether or not someone may be a suspect include not only the extent to which the suspect matches the physical characteristics of the perpetrator (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity) but also whether or not she or he is wearing similar clothing to that described of the perpetrator. Psychological scientists have evaluated the extent to which the presentation of a suspect in clothing similar to that worn by the perpetrator influences the accuracy of witness decisions in showups. Research conducted in the 1990s and 2000s identified that the presentation of innocent suspects in clothing similar to that of the perpetrator increased the likelihood of a false identification; however, this was only likely if the suspect and perpetrator were wearing distinctive clothing. Clothing bias did not occur when the suspect and perpetrator were wearing generic clothing (e.g., a plain T-shirt and jeans). However, research conducted in the 2010s has challenged the assumption that clothing bias harms the accuracy of showup decisions and suggests that it may actually improve witness accuracy.
Iterative Showups
Showups are typically used early in an investigation when law enforcement does not have much evidence indicating the identity of the perpetrator. Consequently, the same witness may participate in multiple showups during which they are shown a series of individuals to identify whether any of them are the perpetrator. For example, an officer may detain two individuals that fit the description of the perpetrator and were found in close proximity to the crime scene. The officer may then show one of the individuals to the witness for identification purposes. If the witness positively identifies that individual, an arrest is typically made, and the second individual is released. However, if the witness indicates that the first individual is not the perpetrator, the officer may then show the second individual to the witness in a separate showup procedure. One published study has investigated the use of iterative showups and found that the likelihood of a false identification increases in the subsequent showup procedures.
Repeated Procedures
As showups are typically viewed as more suggestive than police lineups, many agencies routinely follow showup identifications with a lineup containing the same suspect. When there are multiple witnesses to a crime and the lineup is used for additional witnesses who did not initially participate in a showup, follow-up lineups can provide important information regarding the likelihood that the suspect is the perpetrator. However, when these follow-up police lineups are used with witnesses who already viewed the suspect in a showup, the probative value of subsequent identifications is significantly reduced. This reduction in the value of these follow-up lineup suspect identifications is caused by the increased likelihood that a witness will identify the suspect in the subsequent lineup simply because she or he viewed the suspect in the prior showup regardless of whether or not that suspect is the perpetrator. Furthermore, the repeated presentation of an innocent suspect across identification procedures can actually alter the witnesses’ memory for the true perpetrator making it difficult for them to identify the true perpetrator even when encountering with her or him in the future.
Age of the Witness
There are very few studies examining the effects of witness age on identification decisions in showups. This limited research suggests, though, that the witness’s age can influence the identification decision made when viewing a showup. Young children (under 8 years of age) are more likely to identify a suspect in a showup regardless of whether that suspect is or is not the perpetrator. As a result, young children produce both more correct identifications when the suspect is the perpetrator and more false identifications when the suspect is innocent. Older children (ages 8–15) are more likely than adults to falsely identify an innocent suspect. Performance in showups does not differ across adulthood with young adults and the older adults performing similarly when making showup identification decisions.
Witness Intoxication
As showups are conducted shortly after the crime occurred, there is an increased likelihood of a witness being intoxicated while participating in a showup as compared to a police lineup that typically occurs days later. Few studies have investigated the influence of intoxication on witness performance in identification procedures. Only one published study has investigated the effects of intoxication on witness decisions in showups and found that intoxication increased the likelihood of a false identification. The remaining research focusing on police lineups has found no influence of intoxication on witness decisions, although some studies have found that intoxicated witnesses are less confident in their decisions.
Recommendations for Conducting Showup Identifications
Showup identification procedures are important tools for law enforcement in the early phases of a criminal investigation as they afford the investigators the ability to quickly exclude innocent suspects and develop probable cause for the arrest of a potentially guilty perpetrator. As a result, although psychological research suggests that showups provide less useful information than police lineups, it is unlikely that law enforcement will cease using showups in their investigative practices. However, psychological scientists have developed recommendations for how and when showup identifications should be used. Generally speaking, these recommendations are that police lineups should be the preferred identification procedure and that showups should be avoided when it is possible to conduct a proper police lineup within a short time period. In addition, if a showup is deemed necessary, every effort should be taken to reduce the suggestiveness of the procedure by minimizing the presentation of the suspect in police custody (e.g., handcuffed, seated in patrol car) unless these efforts are necessary for police, suspect, and public safety. The witness should have a view of the suspect undegraded by distance, poor illumination, and reflection on glass surfaces between the witness and the suspect. If there are multiple witnesses, they should be separated before participating in any identification procedure and probable cause for an arrest should be obtained through the positive identification of a single witness viewing a showup with additional witnesses being shown proper police lineups at a later point in time. Furthermore, witnesses participating in a showup should not be shown any further identification procedures for the same suspect.
References:
- Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., & Gronlund, S. D. (2013). Showups. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures (pp. 45–63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Lawson, V. Z., & Dysart, J. E. (2015). Searching for suspects: Mugshot files and showups (street identifications). In T. Valentine & J. P. Davis (Eds.), Forensic facial identification: Theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites, and CCTV (pp. 71–92). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
- Neuschatz, J. S., Wetmore, S. A., Key, K. N., Cash, D. K., Gronlund, S. D., & Goodsell, C. A. (2016). A comprehensive evaluation of showups. In M. K. Miller & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 1, pp. 43–69). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
- Smith, A. M., Bertrand, M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Kalmet, N., Grossman, D., & Provenzano, D. (2014). The impact of multiple show-ups on eyewitness decisionmaking and innocence risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 247–259. doi:10.1037/ xap0000018
- Valentine, T., Davis, J. P., Memon, A., & Roberts, A. (2012). Live showups and their influence on a subsequent video line-up. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 1–23. doi:10.1002/acp.1796