State v. Francois
863 So.2d 1288, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 299 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A photo lineup procedure is not unnecessarily suggestive in violation of due process merely because it fails to include other individuals known to the witness, such as co-workers, as long as the lineup is composed of a reasonable number of individuals with physical characteristics similar to the suspect.
Facts:
- An armed man wearing a 99 Cent Store vest attempted to rob a store in Boynton Beach after it closed.
- An assistant manager, Ms. Marino, was confronted by the man, who she described as having three gold teeth.
- A cleaning person, Ms. Sader, saw the man leaving and recognized him as a current or former employee of the 99 Cent Store.
- Both witnesses provided police with a similar physical description of the perpetrator.
- An assistant manager from another store location suggested David Francois, a former employee, as a possible suspect based on the description of his gold teeth.
- Police created a six-person photo lineup using a computer system to select individuals with features similar to Francois.
- Ms. Sader identified Francois from the photo lineup, while Ms. Marino did not identify anyone.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged David Francois with attempted robbery and burglary in the circuit court.
- Francois filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the identification testimony from witness Ms. Sader.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the photo lineup procedure was unnecessarily suggestive.
- The State, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, to quash the trial court's suppression order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police photo lineup violate a defendant's due process rights by being unnecessarily suggestive when the suspect is a former employee of the victim's company, and the lineup does not include photographs of other former or current employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The photo lineup did not violate the defendant's due process rights because the procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive. The court applies a two-pronged test from Manson v. Brathwaite to determine if an out-of-court identification should be excluded: (1) whether the police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure, and if so, (2) whether that procedure created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court found that the first prong was not met. The standard for a non-suggestive lineup is that it includes a reasonable number of people similar to the suspect, such that the suspect's picture does not stand out. Here, the police used a computer database, the ADDICON system, to generate a lineup of individuals who looked similar to Francois. Due process does not impose an additional requirement that police include other specific individuals, such as other employees, known to the witness. Because the procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive, the court did not need to proceed to the second prong of the test, and any questions regarding the reliability of the identification are for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'unnecessarily suggestive' standard for photo lineups. It establishes that the constitutional inquiry focuses on the composition of the photo array itself—whether the individuals depicted are reasonably similar—rather than on who is omitted from it. The ruling reinforces that police are not required to create lineups tailored to a witness's specific personal knowledge, such as including other co-workers, which simplifies the procedural requirements for law enforcement. The court firmly separates the issue of procedural fairness (a question of law for the judge) from witness reliability (a question of fact for the jury), allowing identifications made through non-suggestive procedures to be challenged on credibility grounds at trial.
