In a recent case led by Investigator Michael Donaldson, procedural oversights during an identification process ultimately led to the dismissal of charges. This case sheds light on the importance of adhering to established protocols within law enforcement investigations. Below is a broad overview of the critical procedural issues identified in this case and the potential defenses that emerged, resulting in a favorable outcome for the accused.
Key Procedural Oversights
Through an examination of the investigative report, several areas were identified where established protocols were not fully adhered to. Here are the main points of concern:
- Lack of Exigent Circumstances and Proper Line-Up Protocol
Protocol requires the use of a double-blind procedure for photo line-ups, except in cases where exigent circumstances exist. In this instance, no such circumstances were documented, yet the identification process did not utilize the double-blind procedure, leading to potential bias in the identification. - Absence of Direct Show-Up Identification
For a single-person identification, protocol directs that a witness view the suspect directly. Here, no in-person show-up identification occurred, leading the procedure to default to a photo line-up, an essential step in maintaining identification accuracy. - Suggestive Identification Using a Single Photo
Multiple procedural guidelines advise against using a single photo for identification, as this can lead to suggestive outcomes. Despite these guidelines, only one image was presented to the complainants, raising concerns about the integrity of the identification. - Failure to Separate Witnesses During Identification
With multiple witnesses involved, protocol requires individual viewings to prevent shared biases. This separation was not observed, with witnesses viewing together and not receiving instructions to avoid discussing the identification, further weakening the process. - Irregularities in Photographic Line-Up Consistency
The photographic line-up did not meet the usual standard for uniformity, including similar backgrounds and dimensions. This inconsistency cast additional doubt on the identification process’s reliability. - Incomplete Instructions to Witnesses
Witnesses are typically instructed to only make an identification if they are certain. Here, such instructions were either absent or not thoroughly provided, undermining the credibility of the witness identification. - Inadequate Documentation of Identification Procedure
Standard procedure requires documenting key details, including time, date, and location, along with any statements made by witnesses. The lack of comprehensive documentation raised concerns over transparency and accuracy. - Broad Weapon Description
The weapon was described in vague terms, offering little detail to accurately identify or confirm its presence in this context, which could lead to misidentification.
Defense Arguments Stemming from Procedural Issues
Given these procedural oversights, several defense arguments were possible, each addressing crucial points of error:
- Misidentification: The defense argued that errors in the identification process cast doubt on the suspect’s identification.
- Lack of Intent: In cases where harm occurs without clear intent, this argument could reduce the severity of charges.
- Absence of Harm or Danger: If evidence is insufficient to support claims of harm or danger, the defense may challenge these claims.
This case highlights the essential role that adherence to procedural guidelines plays in ensuring a fair investigation process. Protocols are put in place to protect the rights of both the accused and the public, and even minor deviations can lead to significant consequences, as seen here.
At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge that law enforcement officers are often overworked and understaffed, handling immense responsibilities under challenging conditions. However, it remains crucial for all levels of the justice system to follow best practices and procedures to maintain the integrity of investigations and foster public trust.
Covert Results is the premier private investigations, armed security, cyber security, and training company you’ve been searching for. Our team of highly skilled experts has amassed over 100 years of experience in all fields, from investigations to security concerns. Being a member and working within a global network called The Entrepreneurs Organization allows us to provide excellent service anywhere on Earth – truly bringing peace of mind through our world class services! Be sure to follow @CovertResults across Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn for the latest information regarding investigator expertise as well as lighthearted moments shared by our community! If you need us to guide you to that peace of mind you are looking for, call or text 615-861-1680 or email contact@covertresults.com.
