[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
The defendant was seen in the general area of some recent crimes. He resembled a police โlookoutโ that described the perpetrator. An eyewitness to one of the crimes tentatively identified the defendant to a law enforcement officer as he left a nearby restroom. The officers detained the defendant and summoned the detective assigned to the robberies. Upon his arrival ten to fifteen minutes later, his attempt to take a photograph of the defendant was thwarted by the inclement weather. The officers then took the defendant into custody, ostensibly because he was a suspected truant. The officers took a photograph of the defendant at the station.
The following day, the police showed the first victim a photo display including a photo of the defendant. She immediately selected the defendant as her assailant. Later, another victim made a similar identification. The officers arrested the defendant. At a courtordered lineup, the two women who had previously made the photographic identifications positively identified the defendant as their assailant. The defendant was later identified in court by the two witnesses.
Whether the in-court identification was tainted by the identifications made through the illegal seizure?
No. In-court identification can be tainted by identifications made through an illegal seizure; however, in this instance, the eyewitnessโ identification was not the result of the illegal seizure.
The police knew the victimโs identity before the arrest and was not discovered because of the unlawful seizure. Also, the unlawful police conduct did not bias the victimโs capacity to identify the perpetrator of the crime.
โThe exclusionary rule enjoins the Government from benefiting from evidence it has unlawfully obtained; it does not reach backward to taint information that was in official hands prior to any illegality. . . . The pretrial identification obtained through use of the photograph taken during defendantโs illegal detention cannot be introduced; but the in-court identification is admissible . . . because the policeโs knowledge of defendantโs identity and the victimโs independent recollections of him both antedated the unlawful arrest and were thus untainted by the constitutional violation.โ
445 U.S. 463, 100 S. Ct. 1244 (1980)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved