ABSTRACT
The court pointed out that, in examining the constitutionality of pre-trial identification procedures under the due process clause, the court must first determine whether the procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and must then weigh the corrupting influence of the suggestive procedure against the reliability of the identification itself. If the pre-trial identification takes place at a showup rather than a line-up, improper procedures will also contaminate the in-court identification. Another means of identification, although certainly more rare than fingerprinting, is dental examination. The Court cautioned that the witness identification at trial, following a pre-trial identification by photographs, would be set aside if the photographic identification procedure was so suggestive that it would create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Although fingerprinting and photographing suspects are common practices, these procedures have not always gone unchallenged. The Supreme Court held that counsel must be present if requested by the suspect or if one has been appointed.
