A man exposes himself to a woman. The woman obtains his license plate and reports the incident to a uniformed patrol officer. The officer is able to obtain the vehicle owner's name and a photograph of him from a law enforcement database. The officer allows the woman to view the photograph on the computer in his patrol vehicle. The woman makes a positive identification. The subject is arrested and provides an inculpatory statement. Will the identification and statement hold up in court?

Thank you for asking our help with your homework assignment. However, there are some rules we have for doing so.
Do not simply retype or paste a question from your book or study material

We won't do your homework questions for you. You were given the assignment for you to learn.

If you come up with your own answer or process and post it for us to critique that is acceptable. If you have some SPECIFIC questions that you couldn't find or didn't understand, we may help with that.
But this is your assignment, so show us you have at least attempted to complete it on your own.

Thank you.

We will be glad to discuss this with you. As noted it is obviously not a real question, but homework. Real people don't talk or ask questions like that.

This was not a homework assignment, but rather a real life scenario. I was asking for my personal knowledge. If you can not answer, then do not beat around the bush. I am not a student looking for someone to do my homework. I was hoping someone could direct me to a particular case law. Apparently this is the wrong forum for this type of question.

Sorry but the way the question s worded it appears to be a homework question.

But in case it isn't, it depends on other factors. Generally, an eyewitness identification should be done from a lineup or photo array. Showing the witness a single picture and asking if that was the perp, is usually not going to hold up. If the arrest was based solely on the eyewitness ID it may be trown out, which would may make any statement invalid.

But there are many other factors that could allow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMGaudet

.... I was hoping someone could direct me to a particular case law. Apparently this is the wrong forum for this type of question.

---

Correct. It is the wrong forum. The question involves research of case law for your particular jurisdiction. I suspect the case law will vary depending on which state you are in. I could be wrong, but in my opinion you are not likely to find someone willing to research caselaw for this question, even if you were to indicate which state you are curious about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Sorry but the way the question s worded it appears to be a homework question.

But in case it isn't, it depends on other factors. Generally, an eyewitness identification should be done from a lineup or photo array. Showing the witness a single picture and asking if that was the perp, is usually not going to hold up. If the arrest was based solely on the eyewitness ID it may be trown out, which would may make any statement invalid.

But there are many other factors that could allow it.

---

This is exactly what I was thinking. However, there is a 1968 case law Simmons v Ohio (?), where following an aggravated assault by shooting, the female suspect dropped her drivers license while fleeing. The officer showed the license to the victim who made a positive identification. The suspect was convicted and made appeal. The conviction was upheld in that the court felt the necessity to quickly get this dangerous person off the street and into custody. This matter, however, is only a misdemeanor with no serious threat.

In Georgia, at the scene of the crime there is no need for multiple lines ups
Even showing a possible subject in the back of a patrol car to a victim is OK.
** done that myself.
.

And sorry you are quoting old case law, so yes this is homework, it is so obvious, please don't act like we are stupid and lie to us,

I am closing this, your response is too obvious, not just someone wanting to know.