Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Perry v. New Hampshire

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureEyewitness IdentificationDue ProcessDue Process Clauseeyewitness identificationpolice-arranged suggestivenessshowupreliability

Facts

After a report that a man was breaking into cars, Officer Clay arrived and found Perry in a parking lot holding two car-stereo amplifiers near a metal bat. While Clay and the car owner's neighbor, Blandón, were speaking in the apartment building, Blandón pointed to her kitchen window and said the man she had seen breaking into the car was the person standing in the parking lot next to a police officer. Police had not asked Blandón to identify Perry or otherwise staged the confrontation, and about a month later Blandón could not identify Perry from a photographic array. Perry sought suppression of Blandón's out-of-court identification as unduly suggestive.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause require a trial court to conduct a pretrial reliability screening of an eyewitness identification whenever the identification occurred under suggestive circumstances, even if those circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement? More specifically, must a court suppress or screen an identification that was suggestive due to happenstance rather than improper police action?

Rule

The Due Process Clause requires a pretrial judicial inquiry into the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence only when the identification was procured through an unnecessarily suggestive procedure arranged by law enforcement. When no improper law enforcement activity is involved, reliability is tested through ordinary trial protections such as counsel, cross-examination, rules of evidence, and jury instructions, not through a special due process screening.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a store clerk watched a late-night burglary from across the street. Minutes later, while officers were questioning Damon Price in handcuffs near a patrol car, the clerk stepped outside on her own and blurted out, "That's him," before any officer asked her to identify anyone.

Must the trial court conduct a special pretrial due process reliability screening of the clerk's identification?

Explanation. The majority held that due process requires pretrial screening only when law enforcement arranged unnecessarily suggestive circumstances leading to the identification. Here, the witness identified Damon spontaneously, without police prompting or orchestration. Even if the circumstances were suggestive, absent improper police arrangement the identification's reliability is tested through ordinary trial protections such as cross-examination, evidentiary rules, and jury instructions.