Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716

In Nashua, NH, Blandón identified Perry from a parking lot after a nighttime incident; Perry was detained and later arrested.
A one-person showup occurred in the lot, with Blandón later unable to identify Perry from a photo array.
Perry was charged with theft by unauthorized taking and criminal mischief; Blandón’s out-of-court identification was challenged as potentially due to suggestive circumstances.
The NH Superior Court applied a two-step inquiry (suggestiveness and reliability) and ruled the identification was not unnecessarily suggestive.
At trial, Perry was convicted on theft and acquitted of criminal mischief; on appeal, he challenged the admissibility of Blandón’s identification.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether due process requires a pretrial reliability screen for eyewitness identifications not arranged by police.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process requires pretrial reliability screening when identification is not police-arranged	Perry argues for a broad screening rule regardless of police arrangement	State argues screening is unnecessary absent police arrangement	No; screening not required absent police-arranged suggestive procedures
Whether Brathwaite's reliability framework applies irrespective of police arrangement	Perry contends reliability governs all suggestive identifications	State contends reliability is contingent on police-created suggestiveness	Reliability matters, but only after improper police conduct is shown
Whether expanding the due process check to all suggestive identifications is appropriate	Perry and dissent argue for broader protection against unreliability	State argues existing safeguards suffice (jury, confrontation, rules of evidence)	No expansion beyond police-arranged situations; safeguards suffice

Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (police-conducted showups and hospital identifications linked to due process concerns)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (reliability cornerstone; suppression only for very substantial misidentification risk)
Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969) (due process requires exclusion when police arrangements make identification almost inevitable)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (totality-of-circumstances approach to reliability after improper suggestiveness)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability as linchpin; balancing factors; deterrence and fairness concerns)
Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (right to counsel at pretrial confrontations due to dangers of identification)