Polizzotti Decision Prioritizes Convenience Over Due Process in Eyewitness Identification

December 2016.

In Commonwealthv.Polizzotti, a Superior Court Judge ruled that the use of a single booking photograph for identification by police officers shortly after the incident was justified under the “good reason” standard due to the need for prompt identification in the immediate aftermath of a crime. The court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the identifications, concluding that the procedure did not violate due process rights.

Our Take:

The Polizzotti decision unjustifiably elevates convenience over due process.  The Judge suggests that “research and common sense” show that “prompt identifications tend to be more reliable,” but exactly how much longer would it take to put together a photo array?  The days of hard-copy mugshot books have long since passed.  Police now employ technology (such as Detective Dokos’ IPad, which he used to access Polizzotti’s booking photo) that allows for near instantaneous creation of photo spreads.  At the same time that technology has advanced, so too has our understanding of the frailties of eyewitness identification.  The Court apparently gave weight to the fact that the ID witness was a police officer, pointing to a 1985 case in which a police officer’s training and experience may be relevant to whether an identification is suggestive.  But at the end, police officers do not have superhuman senses.  Like all mere mortals, their minds do not work like a video recorder.  Particularly given the circumstances surrounding the ID, given that the suspect wore a green bay packers hat (a factor which “significant[ly] impair[s]” eyewitness identification), given the lack of any distinctive features which would otherwise aid an accurate ID, and given research suggesting that identifications performed thirty minutes after a “low-impact incident” are likely unreliable, the risk of misidentification in this case was high.