Accusation of Burglary Based on a Photo ID

[Semitar]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Wisconsin.

These are the facts as I understand them.

My brother's cell phone job was burglarized. Someone entered the building (unforced entry) and accessed two doors that need combinations. 6 employees know the safe combinations. My brother was called in on his day off. The police were there and asked if my brother was "him" and the store manager said "yes and he has a gun". My brother does not own a gun.

He was taken downtown for questioning (he was not read his rights when taken down). He told them that the manager ID'ed him from a picture. He said he was not present and the police continued to ask him who the other person was.

Upon bailing himself out, he found out from his girlfriend's mom (who was shown a picture that the manager was shown) that the suspect she identified as my brother has darker skin than my brother as well as a goatee that my brother does not have.

He has an initial hearing, however what concerns me is that my brother was arrested and can be potentially charged based on her mere accusation from a picture of two suspects - one who you cannot make any reasonable determination that is him, and the other suspect that she said was him does not resemble my brother.

Any thoughts?

[free9man]

Any thoughts?

Your brother needs an attorney.

[Semitar]

Your brother needs an attorney.

I guess my question is how they could charge, much less convict? Isn't the burden of proof on them to prove he DID it?

According to his girlfriend's mom, the photo ID in no way resembles him. What is the justifiable reason how they can support charging him? Or is mere accusation sufficient to get convicted?

[cbg]

Neither we, nor you, know what evidence they do and do not have. Obviously they thought they had enough for a charge or they would not have charged him. They do not have to prove he did it before he is charged; that's what the trial is for.

Just because his girlfriend's mom doesn't think the photo resembles him doesn't mean someone else might have a different opinion; nor is it a guarantee that there is no other evidence.

[jk]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Wisconsin.

These are the facts as I understand them.

My brother's cell phone job was burglarized. Someone entered the building (unforced entry) and accessed two doors that need combinations. 6 employees know the safe combinations. My brother was called in on his day off. The police were there and asked if my brother was "him" and the store manager said "yes and he has a gun". My brother does not own a gun.

He was taken downtown for questioning (he was not read his rights when taken down). He told them that the manager ID'ed him from a picture. He said he was not present and the police continued to ask him who the other person was.

Upon bailing himself out, he found out from his girlfriend's mom (who was shown a picture that the manager was shown) that the suspect she identified as my brother has darker skin than my brother as well as a goatee that my brother does not have.

He has an initial hearing, however what concerns me is that my brother was arrested and can be potentially charged based on her mere accusation from a picture of two suspects - one who you cannot make any reasonable determination that is him, and the other suspect that she said was him does not resemble my brother.

Any thoughts?

are you suggesting the police were not given a copy of the picture claimed to identify your brother? If so, they had the opportunity to make the comparison themselves.
goatees can be shaven. did he have one recently? Cameras, especially those of not the highest quality are often inconsistent with quality so the darker skin issue is not really valuable.

[Semitar]

are you suggesting the police were not given a copy of the picture claimed to identify your brother? If so, they had the opportunity to make the comparison themselves.
goatees can be shaven. did he have one recently? Cameras, especially those of not the highest quality are often inconsistent with quality so the darker skin issue is not really valuable.

I am not suggesting that they weren't given a copy. I am saying that based on my brother's gf mom, the picture she was shown was not my brother - there is no possible, it isn't him. He has a mustache, which in and of itself isn't particularly identifying, however my brother has never had a goatee - he has never produced the facial hair to have one. So intuitively, I see no way why they would still pursue him. The only way the picture is applicable is if she lied.

I appreciate your comment about the quality of the photo. The inferiority of the quality even reinforces how her mere accusation (IMO) should not be sufficient. I would think you'd have to be damned accurate with that. I admit that there could be something that I am missing, however if I am to assume that the information that I have is reliable, I am at a loss how he even gets this far based on that. If that's the case, there isn't anything from stopping anyone from lodging an accusation if there is no standard of reliability or credibility that needs to be met.

I am just trying to understand how this could be possible. It feels like they are presuming guilt because the store manager pointed him out, and that this is grounds enough to charge and convict, even though the picture does not definitively implicate him.

[cbg]

The store manager's identification IS evidence.

He hasn't been convicted yet.

[jk]

I am not suggesting that they weren't given a copy. I am saying that based on my brother's gf mom, the picture she was shown was not my brother - there is no possible, it isn't him. He has a mustache, which in and of itself isn't particularly identifying, however my brother has never had a goatee - he has never produced the facial hair to have one. So intuitively, I see no way why they would still pursue him. The only way the picture is applicable is if she lied.

I appreciate your comment about the quality of the photo. The inferiority of the quality even reinforces how her mere accusation (IMO) should not be sufficient. I would think you'd have to be damned accurate with that. I admit that there could be something that I am missing, however if I am to assume that the information that I have is reliable, I am at a loss how he even gets this far based on that. If that's the case, there isn't anything from stopping anyone from lodging an accusation if there is no standard of reliability or credibility that needs to be met.

I am just trying to understand how this could be possible. It feels like they are presuming guilt because the store manager pointed him out, and that this is grounds enough to charge and convict, even though the picture does not definitively implicate him.

he has a right to defend himself at trial. The managers statement alone will not convict him. In fact, it may not even be presented at trial (although it could be). The picture is what is critical and the jury will be allowed to make the determination as to whether the person in the picture appears to be your brother. The managers claim it is him becomes pretty meaningless in this case. It was a means to identify a suspect but it won't be needed in convicting him.

[Semitar]

he has a right to defend himself at trial. The managers statement alone will not convict him. In fact, it may not even be presented at trial (although it could be). The picture is what is critical and the jury will be allowed to make the determination as to whether the person in the picture appears to be your brother. The managers claim it is him becomes pretty meaningless in this case. It was a means to identify a suspect but it won't be needed in convicting him.

I guess I hate the idea that the accusation is baseless. She had no reason to assume it's my brother over anyone else with there being no identifiable characteristics in the picture, and I would have expected the police to summarily dismiss him as a suspect based on the picture alone. He never had a goatee and he is not dark at all.

He had to do 3 days in jail because of this, and I am curious if he has defamation, profiling, or discrimination recourse against his employer based on this.

[jk]

Semitar;884310]I guess I hate the idea that the accusation is baseless

.ok, then ignore it because I can pretty much guarantee that is not the only evidence used to charge your brother.

She had no reason to assume it's my brother over anyone else with there being no identifiable characteristics in the picture, and I would have expected the police to summarily dismiss him as a suspect based on the picture alone. He never had a goatee and he is not dark at all.

yet here we are with your brother being charged with the crime.

He had to do 3 days in jail because of this, and I am curious if he has defamation, profiling, or discrimination recourse against his employer based on this.

no