Composite After a Masked Armed Robbery
Police ask a certified forensic artist to prepare a composite of a suspect in an armed robbery. The witness, a 27-year-old store clerk, had a handgun pointed at her and reports seeing the suspect for about four seconds before he turned and ran. The suspect wore a dark hooded sweatshirt with the hood up and a bandana covering the lower half of his face; only the eyes, brows, and part of the forehead were visible. The witness is of a different racial background from the suspect, has already viewed a six-person photo array without identification, and two days later saw a news broadcast showing a person of interest. The lead detective wants a full-face likeness for release that evening and asks whether the artist can add the mouth from the broadcast photo. The witness says she is 100% sure she would recognize the eyes. What should the artist do?
1. Should the artist agree to produce a full-face composite for release that evening? Justify the decision using the encoding and post-event information.
Read the worked answer
A full-face composite is not defensible on these facts. The witness had a weapon pointed at her, which increases weapon focus and reduces attention to peripheral facial features; the viewing lasted only about four seconds; the lower face was covered; and the cross-race effect further weakens feature encoding. The photo array and the news broadcast are post-event information that can contaminate memory, especially because the witness has since seen a person of interest. A composite limited to the visible upper face may be possible, but it must not imply knowledge of the mouth, jaw, or chin. Adding the mouth from the broadcast would import another person's features into the witness's image and could create a false likeness. The artist should decline the full-face request, explain the limits, and offer either no composite or a clearly labeled limited-feature image based only on the witness's memory of the eyes, brows, and forehead. The witness's 100% confidence is not a substitute for view conditions.
2. Outline the interview and documentation steps the artist should take before any drawing is made.
Read the worked answer
The artist should interview the witness before any further media exposure and should not show the broadcast image or the photo array again. A cognitive-style interview is appropriate: reinstate context, ask open-ended questions about duration, distance, lighting, angle, and what drew attention, then move to feature-by-feature questions without suggesting answers. The artist should separate what the witness actually saw from what she inferred, and should record confidence for each feature rather than a single global confidence rating. The hood, bandana, and weapon should be documented as occlusions, not treated as facial features. The artist should note the witness's racial background and the suspect's apparent background, the presence of any distinctive eye or brow features, and whether those features were seen in profile or frontal view. All post-event exposures, including the array and broadcast, should be documented. If the witness cannot describe the upper face beyond generic categories, the artist should recommend against a composite rather than manufacture detail.
3. What caveats and presentation choices should accompany any released image?
Read the worked answer
Any released image should be presented as an investigative lead, not as an identification. The caption should state that only the eyes, brows, and forehead were visible and that the lower face is unknown; the image should not be photorealistic or appear to be a portrait. If the artist produces a limited-feature image, it should show the occlusions or use a neutral, clearly non-identifying treatment of the unseen lower face. The release should note the short exposure, weapon focus, disguise, cross-race viewing, and post-event media exposure so that officers do not overvalue the image. The artist should retain the original sketches, interview notes, and any revisions with reasons. If the image is released, the agency should avoid pairing it with the broadcast photograph, because that pairing would imply a link the witness cannot support. The goal is to generate tips about the visible features, not to create a resemblance to a particular person.