[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
An officer was called to an apartment parking lot to investigate a suspicious person in the early morning hours. Upon her arrival, she found the defendant engaged in what appeared to be the burglary of a motor vehicle. A second officer arrived and detained the defendant in the parking lot while the initial officer visited an eyewitness to the crime. The eyewitness was located in her residence on the fourth floor of the apartment complex. The officer asked for a description of the perpetrator of the crime and the eyewitness provided a basic description of the defendant. When the officer asked for a more specific description, the eyewitness โpointed to her kitchen window and said the person she saw breaking intoโฆ[the] car was standing in the parking lot, next to the police officer.โ The officers arrested the defendant. Approximately one month later, the officers showed the eyewitness a photographic array that included a picture of the defendant but the eyewitness was not able to identify the perpetrator of the crime.
Whether a suggestive eyewitness circumstance that occurred through no influence of the government can amount to a Due Process violation?
No. The Due Process Clause is reserved as a protection against inherent governmental misconduct.
The Court is very concerned with the enormous influence the government has in the pretrial eyewitness identification process. A principle of due process is that trial courts screen these events to ensure that the government has provided a fair method of establishing the identity of the offender. However, the Court noted that โ[W]e have not extended pretrial screening for reliability to cases in which the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement officers.โ This is because all prior decisions have aimed โto deter police from rigging identification procedures, for example, at a lineup, show-up, or photograph array.โ
There were reasons to question the accuracy of the eyewitnessโ identification in this case: the parking lot was dark; the defendant was standing next to a police officer; he was the only African-American male in the vicinity; and the witness was later unable to pick the defendant out of a photographic array. However, because the governmentโs procedures were not unnecessarily suggestive, the reliability of this testimony was for the jury to consider, not the trial court to suppress. โOnly where the police employ suggestive identification techniquesโฆdoes the Due Process Clause require a trial court to assess the reliability of identification evidence before permitting a jury to consider it.โ
565 U.S. 228, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved