A lineup can violate the Fifth Amendment when a taller suspect stands out.

Outline:

• Quick framing: lineups, rights, and why one detail can change the game.

• The big idea: a lineup can violate the 5th Amendment when it’s impermissibly suggestive.

• Why the height difference example matters, with plain-language explanation.

• A quick tour of the related law and how courts guard fairness.

• Practical takeaways for how lineups should be run and challenged.

• Close with a reminder: fair procedures protect everyone’s rights and help reach the truth.

Lineups, rights, and real-life fairness

Lineups are a routine tool in solving crimes. A witness looks at a group of people and tries to pick out the person who matched what they saw. It sounds straightforward, but the moment a lineup tips the balance—whether intentionally or by accident—the whole process can tilt toward a single suspect. When that happens, the suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights can be at risk. And yes, that same Fifth Amendment that guards against self-incrimination is what we’re talking about here, not just some abstract legal idea. The question is: under what circumstances does a lineup become unfair enough to violate those rights?

Let me explain the core principle in simple terms. The Fifth Amendment isn’t about lineups per se; it’s about fairness in the identification process. If a lineup is conducted in a way that makes it too easy for a witness to identify one person over the others—because someone in the lineup stands out in a striking way—the process can become impermissibly suggestive. If a lineup invites the witness to focus on one person more than the rest, the identification can be biased. That bias can undermine the reliability of the witness’s testimony and, in turn, the suspect’s constitutional protections. In short: when the lineup itself “tells” the witness who to pick, you’ve got a problem.

Why the height difference example hits home

In the set of answer choices you gave, the correct one is the one that reads: a lineup in which Fred is at least 6 inches taller than the others. That may sound like a small detail, but it’s a big deal in law enforcement circles. Here’s why.

• Perception vs. reality. Witnesses are fallible. If one person stands out because of height—or facial features, clothing, or any other noticeable trait—the witness might zero in on that person even if the actual culprit isn’t more likely to be the taller person.

• Impermissible suggestiveness. The lineup’s goal is to be a fair slice of similarity, so no single participant dominates the witness’s attention. When a lineup is uneven in appearance, it becomes “unfair” by design or by accident.

• The due-process hinge. The Supreme Court has long held that identification procedures must be fair to pass constitutional muster. If a lineup is so suggestive that it risks misidentification, a court can suppress the identification or find a due-process violation. That’s the legal leverage that helps protect the innocent and ensure the right person is charged.

So, why not the other options? Let’s walk through them briefly, just to see how they fit (or don’t fit) the constitutional picture.

• A. Officers fail to give Miranda rights and obtain a waiver. Miranda warnings are about custodial interrogation, not every single step in the investigative chain. A lineup itself typically isn’t a custodial interrogation, so failure to read Miranda rights here wouldn’t, by itself, establish a Miranda violation for the lineup. It could matter later if the person is questioned while in custody, but that’s a different moment in the process. The key point is that a lineup’s potential unfairness is a Fifth Amendment due-process issue, not a direct Miranda issue.

• B. It is a “show-up” line-up conducted right after the crime. Show-ups can be highly suggestive because they feature a single suspect presented to a witness shortly after an event. They raise serious fairness questions and can implicate due process, but the specific violation depends on how the show-up is conducted and what was known to the witness at the time. Still, the classic line-up fairness problem—unequal appearance among participants—remains a central risk.

• C. Fred refuses to participate in the line-up. A refusal itself isn’t a constitutional violation; it’s an evidentiary matter. The right at stake isn’t about participation per se but about how the lineup is designed and presented. A refusal doesn’t fix or excuse issues of suggestiveness if the lineup otherwise creates bias.

• D. In a line-up, Fred is at least 6 inches taller than the others. This is the subtle but crucial fairness problem. The outlier appearance can steer a witness’s identification and undermine the lineup’s integrity, which is exactly why this option is the correct choice in this context.

A quick tour of the legal guardrails

This topic isn’t just about one line of thinking; it sits on a broader map of identification law. A few landmark ideas help you see why the height-outlier scenario matters:

• Fairness as the baseline. Courts require that identification procedures be fair and reliable. A lineup that makes one person stand out can be unfair, and unfair procedures can taint the evidence.

• The Manson-Brathwaite standard. In cases like Manson v. Brathwaite, the Court held that the essential question is whether identification procedures were unduly suggestive, and, if so, whether the resulting identification was nonetheless reliable under the total circumstances.

• Reliability factors. In Neil v. Biggers and similar rulings, the Court outlined factors for weighing reliability when there’s a suggestive identification. Factors include the witness’s opportunity to view, the level of attention, the accuracy of prior descriptions, the degree of certainty, and the time between the event and the identification.

• Show-ups and lineups. Show-ups tend to be more prone to suggestiveness than properly conducted lineups. Still, both must be designed to minimize bias and avoid swaying the witness toward a single suspect.

In practice, what does a fair lineup look like?

You’ll hear terms like “similar appearance,” “sequential presentation,” and “cautionary instructions.” A fair lineup often involves:

• Similarity: People who resemble the suspect but don’t look obviously different from the rest of the lineup.

• Neutral instructions: The witness should be told that the person who committed the crime may or may not be in the lineup and that the investigation is ongoing.

• Fair lineup composition: The lineup should include a mix of people who plausibly resemble the suspect, rather than an obvious mismatch.

• Documentation: The process is recorded or documented, including who made the lineup, who viewed it, and any notes on eyewitness confidence and reactions.

• Blinding: The officer conducting the lineup shouldn’t know who the suspect is, to prevent unconscious cues from shaping the witness’s choice.

If you’re building a mental model, imagine a movie casting room where the director wants to avoid the star vehicle feel. The goal isn’t to highlight one actor but to present a believable group where any of them could be the right match. The more controlled and balanced the group, the less risk there is that a single obvious feature nudges the witness toward one choice.

Practical implications for officers and defenders

For officers, the takeaway is simple but powerful: design with fairness in mind from the start. If you’re worried a lineup could be “too easy” for the witness to pick someone out because of a standout trait, rethink the lineup. Adjust the makeup so that no single participant towers over the others in a way that could bias identification.

For defense attorneys, the emphasis is on challenging suggestiveness. If you see an outlier in height, skin tone, facial hair, or even a distinctive accessory, you’ve got a potential avenue to argue that the lineup violated due process. The aim isn’t to condemn every lineup but to ensure that the procedures stand up to scrutiny and that identifications are trustworthy.

Let me connect this to everyday intuition. Think about a jury pool or a classroom exercise. If one person in a group looks dramatically different—beyond what’s necessary to reflect a real-world population—you’re training the eyes of the observer to notice that difference first. In a lineup, that first glance can become the deciding moment. The law wants to avoid teaching the witness to focus on the oddball rather than the person who actually committed the crime.

A final thought—why this matters beyond the case

Fair lineups aren’t just about won-lost outcomes in a single case. They’re about the reliability of the justice system as a whole. When procedures are biased, innocent people can be drawn into legal entanglements, and real culprits can slip through the cracks. The standard isn’t perfection; it’s fairness, transparency, and a structured approach that stands up to scrutiny. That’s the backbone of due process.

If you’re studying these topics—yes, they’re academically crunchy—but you’re also trying to connect the dots to real-world practice, here’s a simple thread to hold onto: identification procedures must be fair and free from cues that push a witness toward a single person. Any feature that makes one participant stand out can threaten that fairness. And if it does, the rights at stake aren’t just legal abstractions—they’re protections that matter to real people, including the person across from the badge and the person who sits in the defendant’s chair.

Bringing it back to the core idea

So, the situation that most clearly triggers a Fifth Amendment concern in the lineup context? It’s when someone in the lineup stands out in a way that invites bias—like Fred being six inches taller than the others. That standout characteristic makes the lineup impermissibly suggestive, and that can undermine the integrity of the identification, which is exactly why it’s treated as a potential constitutional problem.

If you’re navigating these waters, keep your eye on fairness first. The lineup’s job is to reflect a reasonable cross-section of appearances, not to push witnesses toward a preordained conclusion. When that balance tilts, the rights at stake tilt with it—and that’s a line you don’t want to cross.

And finally, a little practical spark: when you study, try to picture the courtroom scene. Visualize the lineup, the witnesses, the officers, and the defense attorney weighing each detail. It’s not just about memorizing a rule; it’s about understanding how those rules shape outcomes in real life. That connection—the human story behind the legal rule—is what makes these topics resonate beyond the pages.