ICPSR 34274
National Survey of Eyewitness
Identification Procedure in Law
Enforcement Agencies, 1994-2012
Description
Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research
P.O. Box 1248
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
www.icpsr.umich.edu
- ICPSR 34274 -
Bibliographic Description
ICPSR Study No.:
Title:
Principal Investigator(s):
34274
National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law
Enforcement Agencies, 1994-2012
Gerard Murphy, Police Executive Research Forum
Molly Griswold, Police Executive Research Forum
Bruce Kubu, Police Executive Research Forum
Daniel Woods, Police Executive Research Forum
Colleen Berryessa, Police Executive Research Forum
Kevin Greene, Police Executive Research Forum
Jacob Berman, Police Executive Research Forum
Funding Agency:
Grant Number:
Bibliographic Citation:
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National
Institute of Justice
2010-IJ-CX-0032
Murphy, Gerard, Molly Griswold, Bruce Kubu, Daniel Woods, Colleen
Berryessa, Kevin Greene, and Jacob Berman. National Survey of
Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies,
1994-2012. ICPSR34274-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium
for Political and Social Research[distributor], 2014-03-07.
http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34274.v1
Scope of Study
Summary:
The data results from a study conducted by the Police Executive
Research Forum (PERF) designed to obtain the first nationwide
assessment of the state of the criminal justice field regarding eyewitness
identification procedures used by law enforcement agencies. PERF
designed and conducted a survey of 619 police departments across the
United States. The study focused on the departments training and policy
when conducting eyewitness identification; particularly the study
examined the use of "blind" administrators and the use of simultaneous
or sequential presentation to the witness. The number of lineup members,
witness instructions, police training, number of witness viewings and
- ii -
- ICPSR 34274 recording of the witness statements were also examined. A pilot test of
the survey was conducted prior to the study.
Subject Term(s):
Smallest Geographic Unit:
Geographic Coverage:
case processing, evaluation, evidence, eyewitness memory, police
departments, policy analysis, suspect identification, testimony, training,
witnesses
region
United States
Time Period:
• 1994 - 2012
Date(s) of Collection:
• 2010 - 2012
Unit of Observation:
Universe:
Data Type:
Data Collection Notes:
law enforcement agency
All functioning United States police agencies listed within the National
Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies (NDLEA) database in 2011, that
perform full service police duties (N=15,685).
survey data
The study associated with the data (Murphy, Donaldson, Kubu, Woods,
Berryessa, Greene, and Berman, 2012; NIJ 2010-IJ-CX-0032) discusses
qualitative data collected from 30 interviews via telephone as a
supplement to the survey. This data will not be released by ICPSR at
this time.
Methodology
Purpose of the Study:
The purpose of the study was to create the first nationwide assessment
of the criminal justice system regarding eyewitness identification
procedures used by law enforcement agencies including through
conducting a national survey of a random stratified sample of law
enforcement agencies in the United States regarding their eyewitness
identification policies, training, and police procedures.
Study Design:
The Eyewitness Identification Survey was developed in consultation with
a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprised of academic researchers
and law enforcement experts. The survey was fielded in order to evaluate
the current eyewitness identification policies and practices in law
enforcement agencies throughout the United States. A focus group of
the eight TAG members examined the major issues to be included in
the survey and to identify questions that would effectively evaluate current
- iii -
- ICPSR 34274 practices in the field. The draft of the Eyewitness Identification Survey
was sent to representatives from nine law enforcement agencies in June
and July of 2011. Agencies were chosen based on their past experiences
with and expertise regarding eyewitness identification procedures and
policy development. These pilot testers were asked to complete the
survey and make margin notes concerning questions about the form
and content. Each person was then contacted via telephone to discuss
the survey. The final version of the survey was made available to
respondents online as well as in hard copy.
The National Eyewitness Identification Survey was distributed to a
random stratified sample of law enforcement agencies throughout the
United States (n=1,377). Hard copies of the survey were mailed to
agencies on three separate occasions between August 17 and October
25, 2011. Reminder letters were sent to non-responding agencies in five
separate waves between October 18, 2011 and January 11, 2012.
Reminder telephone calls were placed to a number of non-respondent
agencies between January 17 and January 24, 2012. A total of 619
completed surveys were returned.
When the surveys were returned they were recorded and reviewed for
completion. Surveys with information that was considered unclear,
inconsistent, or missing were flagged. PERF staff members contacted
respondents for all flagged surveys for clarification or missing response.
Staff members attempted to contact respondents of missing data through
mid January 2012.
Sample:
The study contracted with Tailored Statistical Solutions, LCC (TS²) to
draw a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies
from the National Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies (NDLEA)
database. In addition to the name and address of the current chief
executive, NDLEA information included the population served by the law
enforcement agency, the type of law enforcement agency, the number
of officers in the agency, and the region (Northeast, Midwest, South,
and West) in which the agency is located. The data base was cleaned
to omit agencies that are defunct or do not perform full service police
duties. After cleaning the database contained information on 15,685 law
enforcement agencies.
The law enforcement agencies in the database were stratified by region,
type, and size based on the number of sworn officers reducing the sample
to 1,401 agencies. Of those, 24 agencies reported not using any
eyewitness identification procedure and were not sent the survey. Of
the 1,377 agencies sent the survey, 619 were completed.
- iv -
- ICPSR 34274 Weight:
Sources of Information:
Mode of Data Collection:
Each of the agencies selected for the sample was weighted (using
variable FINALWTALL "WEIGHT") in order to account for population
size.
National Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies (NDLEA)
record abstracts
mail questionnaire
web-based survey
Description of Variables:
The 515 variables contained in the study include:
1) Agency information.
2) Current policies including: instructions given to eyewitness pre-lineup,
lineup procedure, lineup content, lineup presentation method, and
behavioral influence of the lineup administrator.
Lineup procedures include: show up, photographic lineup, live lineup,
composite, and mugshot search.
3) Historical agency experiences.
Response Rates:
Of the 1,377 agencies sent the survey, 619 completed the survey
resulting in a response rate of 45 percent.
Presence of Common
Scales:
none
Extent of Processing:
Standardized missing values.
Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Access and Availability
Note:
Restrictions:
A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the
summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record
length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the file manifest.
A downloadable version of data for this study is available however,
certain identifying information in the downloadable version may have
been masked or edited to protect respondent privacy. Additional data
not included in the downloadable version are available in a restricted
version of this data collection. For more information about the differences
-v-
- ICPSR 34274 between the downloadable data and the restricted data, please refer to
the codebook notes section of the codebook. Users interested in
obtaining restricted data must complete and sign a Restricted Data Use
Agreement, describe the research project and data protection plan, and
obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Original ICPSR Release:
Dataset(s):
2014-03-07
• DS1: Eyewitness Identification Procedure Data
Publications
Final Reports and Other
Publication Resources:
A list of publications related to, or based on, this data collection can be
accessed from the study's download page on the NACJD Web site or
through the ICPSR Bibliography of Data-Related Literature at
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ICPSR/citations/index.html. The list of citations
includes links to abstracts and publications in Portable Document Format
(PDF) files or text files when available.
Final reports and other publications describing research conducted on a
variety of criminal justice topics are available from the National Criminal
Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). NCJRS was established in 1972
by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), an agency of the U.S. Department
of Justice, to provide research findings to criminal justice professionals
and researchers. NCJRS operates specialized clearinghouses that are
staffed by information specialists who supply a range of reference, referral,
and distribution services. Publications can be obtained from NCJRS at
NIJ/NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD, 20849-6000, 800-851-3420 or
301-519-5500. TTY Service for the Hearing Impaired is 877-712-9279
(toll-free) or 301-947-8374 (local). The URL for the NCJRS Web site is:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/
NIJ Data Resources Program
About the DRP:
The National Institute of Justice Data Resources Program (DRP) makes
datasets from NIJ-funded research and evaluation projects available to
the research community and sponsors research and training activities
devoted to secondary data analysis. Datasets are archived by the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) at the Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University
of Michigan.
The NACJD maintains a World Wide Web site with instructions for
transferring files and sending messages. Criminal justice data funded by
the Department of Justice are available via the Internet at this site at no
charge to the user. NACJD may be contacted at NACJD/ICPSR, P.O.
- vi -
- ICPSR 34274 Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106-1248, 800-999-0960. The URL for the
NACJD Web site is:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/
- vii -
Running head: NATIONAL SURVEY
1
National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies
Pretty Polite
Research Methods in PSY
November 6, 2016
NATIONAL SURVEY
2
National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies
Problem Statement
The criminal justice department has a fundamental legal duty to fulfill to the community.
In some cases, is required to handle cases where there are eye witnesses. Notably, eye witnesses
are very important persons of interest in a legal case. Their testimony allows the presiding judge
as well as the jury to reach relevant and fair conclusions. As such, it is important that the legal
fraternity handles these eye witnesses with much care. As they present their testimonies, their
testimonies can be marred since they are mortal. Notably, the eye witnesses can develop an issue
with their eyesight or even be uncertain about their testimony. These are some of the problems
that might affect the evidence provided by the witness.
According to Innocence Project (2013), there have been a significant number of cases
where the guilty persons were exonerated after forensic DNA was used to process the evidence.
Such exonerations took place because the evidence from the eyewitness could not tarry with
what the forensic science detailed. In the same context, there have been questions on just how
reliable human memory is when it comes to remembering details. These questions raise issues
that might dent evidence provided by an eyewitness. As such, this research would help create
solutions that will help mitigate any problem that would mar an eye witness’ credibility as they
make the identification.
NATIONAL SURVEY
3
Literature Review
Reliance on eyewitnesses has its cons and pros. One major con is the fact that often, eye
witnesses will make a mistake (Wells & Loftus, 2003). Although one might be confident with
what their memory holds, it is a fact that people will interpret things differently. Another issue
with memory is the fact that it can be influenced by external factors. As a result, whatever was in
the memory can fade away with time. Their memory can also be affected by traumatic events
that might take place in their life. Such events like crime or even an accident can have traumatic
effects which might confuse the witness (Wells et al., 2000).
Social science has grown in the near past to include researches that help shed light on
practices in law enforcement which might impact negatively on the credibility of an eyewitness’
identification. Scientific evidence collected from research studies carried out in controlled
environments is now available. These studies help to identify possible problems or flaws when
an eye witness identifies a suspect. The eyewitness’ testimony is now checked against the
evidence acquired through forensic DNA science. As noted herein, there have been a significant
number of exonerations after eyewitness evidence is contradicted by DNA testing results (Wells
et al., 1998).
More research has been conducted in the field of eyewitness identification in the context
of whether they should identify photographs or live persons. Information gathered from such
research studies helped developed some of the recommendations as well as guidelines detailed
by the Department of Justice (NIJ Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999). In
the same context, it has remained debatable whether blind administration procedures should be
employed in lineups. Blind administration details that the administrators should not be aware of
NATIONAL SURVEY
4
the suspect in the lineup. Controlled experiments in this area have indicated that when the blind
procedures are employed, the chances of an administrator influencing the results are reduced to a
great extent (Haw & Fisher, 2004).
Sadly, no standards have been set to regulate the eyewitness identification procedures at a
national level. Notably, different agencies have already made changes to the procedures
employed in the witness identification process. This step was motivated by the significant
increase in the number of people that were exonerated due to conflicting evidence gathered
through DNA tests (NIJ Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999). The NIJ
Guide that was developed in 1999 was used by some agencies to curve out their procedures.
Notably, the guide was just a source of recommendations and guidance. Other agencies relied on
legislation by their local state legislators. As a result, there are no regulations that have
standardized at a national level.
As more and more research is conducted on the subject, it is very likely that more and
more agencies will revise their witness identification policies. This will add to the variety of
policies that are used all over the nation. As such, it shows how much there is a need to carry out
controlled research whose will help develop a national policy on witness identification which
will harmonize the legal fraternity’s procedures nationwide.
Research Question
According to experience, which eyewitness identification policies and practices help to
increase the credibility of the eyewitness when identifying a suspect?
NATIONAL SURVEY
Hypothesis
The dependent variable can be influenced by the independent variable depending on the
credibility of the data.
5
NATIONAL SURVEY
6
References
Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. (1999). Written by the NIJ Technical
Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence for the National Institute of Justice of the
Department of Justice. Retrieved Nov 4, 2016. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf.
Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations. The Innocence Project. Retrieved on January 25,
2013. Retrieved at
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.
php.
Wells, G.L., Loftus, E.F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. Handbook of
Psychology, 3: 149-160.
Wells, G.L., Malpass, R.S., Lindsay, R.C.L., Fisher, R.P., Turtle, J. (2000). From the lab to the
police station: A successful application of eyewitness. American Psychologist, 55(6):
581-598.
Wells, G.L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R.S., Fulero, S.M., Brimacombe, C.A.E. (1998)
“Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Line Ups and
Photospreads.” Law and Human Behavior 22: 603 – 647.
Running Head: METHODS
1
Methods
Pretty Polite
Research Methods in PSY
November 17, 2016
Running Head: METHODS
2
Purpose Statement
The primary purpose of this study is to determine how the eyewitness identification
procedure impacts the authenticity and eligibility of an eyewitness’ testimony. To best achieve
this, both qualitative and quantitative methods will be applied in a mixed method. The qualitative
method will be used to check the current eyewitness identification procedures effectiveness. On
the other hand, the quantitative methodology will be carried out to determine how effective the
eyewitness identification process was when a case officer assisted them with the identification
process and when they were not involved in the same process. This latter method will also be
used to check the impact of memory loss on the identification process and how the identification
procedures mitigated the situation.
Methods
A mixed method will be employed in this research design. In this method, a quantitative study
will be carried out on different eyewitnesses to determine how the identification process went
when they had not been helped by an investigative officer who is involved with that particular
case during the process. The Police Executive Research Forum carried out a study in efforts to
assess the state of eyewitnesses in the criminal justice system. They wanted to obtain more data
on the use of eyewitness identification procedures that are being used by law enforcement
agencies. PERF studied six hundred and nineteen different police departments all across the
country. They primarily focused their study on the procedures and training of the departments
when using eyewitness identification methods. They qualitatively collected data via interviews,
they conducted 30 of them over the phone instead of in person like the rest. These surveys were
conducted by both law enforcement officials and academic researchers together. They had a
Running Head: METHODS
3
focus group composed of eight members that closely laid out the core issues of the study. The
agencies that they chose to study in their research were based on both past experience and their
own expertise regarding eyewitness identification. The chosen departments were sent the survey
and asked to complete and return it back to them. They also asked them to add notes on the
margin of the survey including any questions they had about the survey. Once the surveys were
collected and reviewed, PERF contacted each participant over the phone to discuss the survey.
In the first study, there will be a group of witnesses who will have had the help of an
investigative officer as they were making the identification. In this study, the investigative
officer will have prior knowledge of the suspect. In the same study, there will be another group
of eyewitnesses who will not be assisted by an officer who has prior knowledge of the suspect in
question. The second study will have two sets of eyewitnesses. One set will be sure about their
memory while the other will not be sure about the status of their memory. Both groups will be
subjected under the same witness identification process with similar identification procedures.
Finally, the third study will involve different eyewitnesses and investigation officers among
other stakeholders.
The variables in this case study will be the eyewitnesses and memory status as the
dependent variable and the independent variables will be the eyewitness identification
procedures, the criminal and case officer.
Participants
The participants in this case study will include the case officers, eyewitnesses, supposed
criminal, other case officer who will not have identified the ‘criminal’ before the identification
stage. Each participant will play a major role in the study.
Running Head: METHODS
4
Materials and Procedures
The eyewitnesses were identified form a crowd using certain factors of elimination.
There were some who were picked because they had issue with their memory while the rest were
expected to have good memory. Those that had issue with their memory, had to have
experienced a traumatic even in the past which led to the loss of memory. However, other
witnesses who had lost their memory due to other causes were also allowed to participate. It was
paramount to have both parties in the study. There were other persons who would assist with the
identification process and others to act as the case officers who knew the suspected person.
The sample selected for this study was about 1000 people. The different agencies that
were selected were accounted for the population size. The survey was sent to different law
enforcement agencies which had been selected randomly. Of these agencies, there was a number
that did not have eyewitness identification procedures. As such, they could not participate in the
study. There are some respondents who were interviewed. Some were interviewed via telephone.
These interviews came in handy in the identification of any extra procedures that were employed
during the eyewitness identification.
Variables
There were different variables in the study. The study included four main categories of
variables. These were the system variables which included factors which were deemed to have
an effect in the eyewitness identification. These included the method used to present the lineup,
the officer guiding them as they made the identification, the persons in the lineup, as well as the
instructions given to the eyewitnesses when they are making the identification.
Data Analysis Plan
Running Head: METHODS
The data collected in the study was analyzed after the weights were standardized to have
a good representation of the population. Each survey that was taken was recorded and then
reviewed. The review was focused on determining whether the data collected was consistent.
Any inconsistent and unclear data was flagged. The data was then taken through a rigorous
process to clean it through SPSS. The data was then analyzed to determine the results of the
collected data.
5
47
CHAPTER
Ethical Considerations and Guidelines
Table 3.1 Sample Questions for Ethics Review
Investigator
1. Who is the primary investigator, and who is supervising the study
2. Will anyone be assisting you in this investigation
3. Have you or the others whose names are listed above had any experience with this kind of research
Nature of the Study
4. What is the purpose of this research what is it about?
5. What will the research participants be asked to do, or what will be done to them!
6. Will deception be used if the answer is yes, why is it necessary
7. What is the nature of the deception, and when will the debriefing take place?
8. Will the participants risk any harm (physical, psychological, legal, or social by taking part
in this research
9. If there are any risks, how do you justify them? How will you minimize the risk
Research Participants
10. How will you recruit the research participants
11. How do you plan to explain the research to your potential participants and obtain their informed
consent?
12. What should be the general characteristics of your research participants (es. age range, sex,
institutional affiliation, and the projected number of participants
13. What, if any, are the special characteristics you need in your research participants (eg, children,
pregnant women, racial or ethnic minorities, mentally retarded persons, prisoners, or alcoholics
14. Are other institutions or individuals cooperating in of cosponsoring the study
15. Do the participants have to be in a particular mental or physical state to participate usefully
Material
16. If electrical or mechanical equipment will be used, how has it been checked for safety
17. What standardized tests, if any, will be used? What information will be provided to the participants
about their scores on these tests?
Confidentiality
18. What procedure will you use to ensure the confidentiality of the data?
Debriefing
19. How do you plan to debrief the participants
A limitation of this decision-plane model is that it focuses only on the risks and benefits of doing
research and ignores the societal and scientific risks of nor doing research. Suppose an IRB rejected
a research proposal for a study of an important health topic because there was no guarantee that the
privacy of the participants could be protected. On the other side, the researchers insisted there was
no acceptable alternative design that would not compromise the scientific integrity of the project.
Rejecting the research proposal and depriving the community of evidence-based information with
which to address the important health problem did not make the ethical issue disappear. It merely
traded one ethical issue for another, and the risk in human terms of the research not conducted
could also be high. Not surprisingly, it has been suggested that, given the subjectivity of an ethical
Purchase answer to see full
attachment