Efforts to align eyewitness identification procedures with established scientific evidence remain a persistent challenge for the field. To assess current practices and identify areas of progress and ongoing need, the National Policing Institute (NPI), with support from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), conducted a nationwide survey of law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in 2020. This survey updates and expands upon findings from the 2013 NIJ-funded survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). The goals of the current survey were to: (a) document contemporary policies and practices related to photo arrays (lineups) and showups (field identifications); (b) examine changes in agency practices over the past decade; and (c) assess LEA awareness of recent scientific research on eyewitness identification.
A total of 187 LEAs responded to the survey, representing a 22.3% response rate. Although this rate falls short of PERF’s 2013 response rate, it remains above thresholds commonly used for generating reliable population estimates in large-sample national surveys, particularly in the context of declining response rates observed across U.S. survey research. Among responding agencies, 86% reported conducting photo arrays and 64% reported conducting showups, with local police departments more likely than state police or county sheriffs to use them. Most agencies that conducted photo arrays (84%) reported collecting witness confidence statements, consistent with the 2013 PERF findings. In contrast, the proportion collecting confidence statements for showups declined from 85% in 2013 to 72% in the present study.
Regarding photo array presentation methods, 61% of agencies reported using sequential presentation, 24% used simultaneous presentation, and 13% permitted either method. Although early research suggested that sequential procedures could reduce false identifications, more recent studies have found no clear advantage for sequential methods and, in some cases, a modest benefit for simultaneous procedures. Reflecting this evidence, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) model policy (2020) recognizes both sequential and simultaneous presentations as valid, without recommending one over the other.
Despite substantial advances in the scientific literature, many LEAs remained unaware of key findings in eyewitness identification research. More than half of respondents reported being unaware of recent evidence demonstrating the strong predictive relationship between a witness’s initial confidence and identification accuracy. Additionally, roughly two-thirds of agencies were unaware that sequential photo arrays have not been shown to outperform simultaneous arrays in recent research. Awareness and implementation of evidence-based practices varied – sometimes considerably – by agency type, size, and region.
Overall, findings from this nationwide survey provide an updated benchmark of eyewitness identification practices in the United States and highlight a persistent gap between research and practice. These results can inform future training, policy development, and research aimed at strengthening the scientific foundations of eyewitness identification procedures across American law enforcement.
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Human Decomposition Evaluation: A Standardized Approach for Staging and Scoring Morphological Features Using Artificial Intelligence
- Violence following a threat assessment: Do threat classification and school safety measures matter?
- School Resource Officers and Exclusionary Discipline in U.S. High Schools: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis