ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/107A-2 (2026)

Lineup procedure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/107A-2)
    Sec. 107A-2. Lineup procedure.
    (a) All lineups shall be conducted using one of the following methods:
        (1) An independent administrator, unless it is not
    
practical.
        (2) An automated computer program or other device
    
that can automatically display a photo lineup to an eyewitness in a manner that prevents the lineup administrator from seeing which photograph or photographs the eyewitness is viewing until after the lineup is completed. The automated computer program may present the photographs to the eyewitness simultaneously or sequentially, consistent with the law enforcement agency guidelines required under subsection (b) of this Section.
        (3) A procedure in which photographs are placed in
    
folders, randomly numbered, and shuffled and then presented to an eyewitness such that the lineup administrator cannot see or know which photograph or photographs are being presented to the eyewitness until after the procedure is completed. The photographs may be presented to the eyewitness simultaneously or sequentially, consistent with the law enforcement agency guidelines required under subsection (b) of this Section.
        (4) Any other procedure that prevents the lineup
    
administrator from knowing the identity of the suspected perpetrator or seeing or knowing the persons or photographs being presented to the eyewitness until after the procedure is completed.
    (b) Each law enforcement agency shall adopt written guidelines setting forth when, if at all, simultaneous lineups shall be conducted and when, if at all, sequential lineups shall be conducted. This subsection does not establish a preference for whether a law enforcement agency should conduct simultaneous lineups or sequential lineups. Whether and when to conduct simultaneous lineups or sequential lineups is at the discretion of each law enforcement agency. If, after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, a method of conducting a lineup different from a simultaneous or sequential lineup is determined by the Illinois Supreme Court to be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance as a reliable method for eyewitness identifications and provides more accurate results than simultaneous or sequential lineups, a law enforcement agency may adopt written guidelines setting forth when, if at all, this different method of conducting lineups shall be used and, when feasible, the provisions of subsection (d) of this Section shall apply to the use of these methods.
    (c) On and after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, there is no preference as to whether a law enforcement agency conducts a live lineup or a photo lineup and to the extent that the common law directs otherwise, this direction is abrogated.
    (d) If a lineup administrator conducts a sequential lineup, the following shall apply:
        (1) Solely at the eyewitness's request, the lineup
    
administrator may present a person or photograph to the eyewitness an additional time but only after the eyewitness has first viewed each person or photograph one time.
        (2) If the eyewitness identifies a person as a
    
perpetrator, the lineup administrator shall continue to sequentially present the remaining persons or photographs to the eyewitness until the eyewitness has viewed each person or photograph.
    (e) Before a lineup is conducted:
        (1) The eyewitness shall be instructed that:
            (A) if recording the lineup is practical, an
        
audio and video recording of the lineup will be made for the purpose of accurately documenting all statements made by the eyewitness, unless the eyewitness refuses to the recording of the lineup, and that if a recording is made it will be of the persons in the lineup and the eyewitness;
            (B) the perpetrator may or may not be presented
        
in the lineup;
            (C) if an independent administrator is
        
conducting the lineup, the independent administrator does not know the suspected perpetrator's identity or if the administrator conducting the lineup is not an independent administrator, the eyewitness should not assume that the lineup administrator knows which person in the lineup is the suspect;
            (D) the eyewitness should not feel compelled to
        
make an identification;
            (E) it is as important to exclude innocent
        
persons as it is to identify a perpetrator; and
            (F) the investigation will continue whether or
        
not an identification is made.
        (2) The eyewitness shall acknowledge in writing the
    
receipt of the instructions required under this subsection and, if applicable, the refusal to be recorded. If the eyewitness refuses to sign the acknowledgement, the lineup administrator shall note the refusal of the eyewitness to sign the acknowledgement and shall also sign the acknowledgement.
    (f) In conducting a lineup:
        (1) When practicable, the lineup administrator shall
    
separate all eyewitnesses in order to prevent the eyewitnesses from conferring with one another before and during the lineup procedure. If separating the eyewitnesses is not practicable, the lineup administrator shall ensure that all eyewitnesses are monitored and that they do not confer with one another while waiting to view the lineup and during the lineup.
        (2) Each eyewitness shall perform the identification
    
procedures without any other eyewitness present. Each eyewitness shall be given instructions regarding the identification procedures without other eyewitnesses present.
        (3) The lineup shall be composed to ensure that the
    
suspected perpetrator does not unduly stand out from the fillers. In addition:
            (A) Only one suspected perpetrator shall be
        
included in a lineup.
            (B) The suspected perpetrator shall not be
        
substantially different in appearance from the fillers based on the eyewitness's previous description of the perpetrator or based on other factors that would draw attention to the suspected perpetrator.
            (C) At least 5 fillers shall be included in a
        
photo lineup, in addition to the suspected perpetrator.
            (D) When practicable, at least 5 fillers shall be
        
included in a live lineup, in addition to the suspected perpetrator, but in no event shall there be less than 3 fillers in addition to the suspected perpetrator.
            (E) If the eyewitness has previously viewed a
        
photo lineup or live lineup in connection with the identification of another person suspected of involvement in the offense, the fillers in the lineup in which the current suspected perpetrator participates shall be different from the fillers used in the prior lineups.
        (4) If there are multiple eyewitnesses, subject to
    
the requirements in subsection (a) of this Section and to the extent possible, the suspected perpetrator shall be placed in a different position in the lineup or photo array for each eyewitness.
        (5) Nothing shall be communicated to the eyewitness
    
regarding the suspected perpetrator's position in the lineup or regarding anything that may influence the eyewitness's identification.
        (6) No writings or information concerning any
    
previous arrest, indictment, or conviction of the suspected perpetrator shall be visible or made known to the eyewitness.
        (7) If a photo lineup, the photograph of the
    
suspected perpetrator shall be contemporary in relation to the photographs of the fillers and, to the extent practicable, shall resemble the suspected perpetrator's appearance at the time of the offense.
        (8) If a live lineup, any identifying actions, such
    
as speech, gestures, or other movements, shall be performed by all lineup participants.
        (9) If a live lineup, all lineup participants must be
    
out of view of the eyewitness prior to the lineup.
        (10) The lineup administrator shall obtain and
    
document any and all statements made by the eyewitness during the lineup as to the perpetrator's identity. When practicable, an audio or video recording of the statements shall be made.
        (11) If the eyewitness identifies a person as the
    
perpetrator, the eyewitness shall not be provided any information concerning the person until after the lineup is completed.
        (12) Unless otherwise allowed under subsection (a) of
    
this Section, there shall not be anyone present during a lineup who knows the suspected perpetrator's identity, except the eyewitness and suspected perpetrator's counsel if required by law.
    (g) The lineup administrator shall make an official report of all lineups, which shall include all of the following information:
        (1) All identification and non-identification results
    
obtained during the lineup, signed by the eyewitness, including any and all statements made by the eyewitness during the lineup as to the perpetrator's identity as required under paragraph (10) of subsection (f) of this Section. If the eyewitness refuses to sign, the lineup administrator shall note the refusal of the eyewitness to sign the results and shall also sign the notation.
        (2) The names of all persons who viewed the lineup.
        (3) The names of all law enforcement officers and
    
counsel present during the lineup.
        (4) The date, time, and location of the lineup.
        (5) Whether it was a photo lineup or live lineup and
    
how many persons or photographs were presented in the lineup.
        (6) The sources of all persons or photographs used as
    
fillers in the lineup.
        (7) In a photo lineup, the actual photographs shown
    
to the eyewitness.
        (8) In a live lineup, a photograph or other visual
    
recording of the lineup that includes all persons who participated in the lineup.
        (9) If applicable, the eyewitness's refusal to be
    
recorded.
        (10) If applicable, the reason for any
    
impracticability in strict compliance with this Section.
    (h) Unless it is not practical or the eyewitness refuses, a video record of all lineup procedures shall be made.
        (1) If a video record is not practical or the
    
eyewitness refuses to allow a video record to be made:
            (A) the reasons or the refusal shall be
        
documented in the official report required under subsection (g) of this Section;
            (B) an audio record shall be made, if practical;
        
and
            (C) if a live lineup, the lineup shall be
        
photographed.
        (2) If an audio record is not practical, the reasons
    
shall be documented in the official report required under subsection (g) of this Section.
    (i) The photographs, recordings, and the official report of the lineup required by this Section shall be disclosed to counsel for the accused as provided by the Illinois Supreme Court Rules regarding discovery. All photographs of suspected perpetrators shown to an eyewitness during a lineup shall be disclosed to counsel for the accused as provided by the Illinois Supreme Court Rules regarding discovery. To protect the identity of the eyewitness and the identities of law enforcement officers used as fillers in the lineup from being disclosed to third parties, the State's Attorney shall petition the court for a protective order under Supreme Court Rule 415 upon disclosure of the photographs or recordings to the counsel of the accused.
    (j) All of the following shall be available as consequences of compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this Section:
        (1) Failure to comply with any of the requirements of
    
this Section shall be a factor to be considered by the court in adjudicating a motion to suppress an eyewitness identification or any other motion to bar an eyewitness identification. These motions shall be in writing and state facts showing how the identification procedure was improper. This paragraph (1) makes no change to existing applicable common law or statutory standards or burdens of proof.
        (2) When warranted by the evidence presented at
    
trial, the jury shall be instructed that it may consider all the facts and circumstances including compliance or noncompliance with this Section to assist in its weighing of the identification testimony of an eyewitness.
    (k) Any electronic recording made during a lineup that is compiled by any law enforcement agency as required by this Section for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of this Section shall be confidential and exempt from public inspection and copying, as provided under Section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act, and the recording shall not be transmitted to any person except as necessary to comply with this Section.
(Source: P.A. 98-1014, eff. 1-1-15.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: People v. Corral, 2019 IL App (1st) 171501, 126 N.E.3d 632.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Corral, 2019 IL App (1st) 171501, 126 N.E.3d 632. · cites it 2× “¶ 96 We first turn to consider defendant's contention that section 107A-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 ( 725 ILCS 5/107A-2 (West 2016) ) supports his conclusion that the photo array and lineup procedures employed in this case were suggestive.”
People v. Roberts, 2020 IL App (1st) 172262. · cites it 3× “) move to suppress Jose Cavillo’s pretrial identification because the identification was not recorded and the procedure was thus not conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 107A- 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/107A-2(h) (West…”
People v. Corral, 2019 IL App (1st) 171501. “¶ 96 We first turn to consider defendant’s contention that section 107A-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/107A-2 (West 2016)) supports his conclusion that - 17 - the photo array and lineup procedures employed in this case were suggestive.”
People v. Johnson, 2024 IL App (1st) 220494, 257 N.E.3d 568. “But when Washington was initially called to the police station on May 3, 2017, to see if she could identify the shooter, Johnson was not yet in custody, so it was not even possible for her to view him in an in-person lineup. Then, after she had positively identified Johnson in a…”
In re N.A., 2018 IL App (1st) 181332. · cites it 2× “He suggests that the Illinois Supreme Court has “cast doubt” on the reliability of eyewitness identifications and contends that the legislature shares a similar “skepticism” evidenced by its enactment of section 107A-2 of the Criminal Code of 1963 (Lineup Statute) (725 ILCS…”
People v. Gavin, 2022 IL App (4th) 200314, 214 N.E.3d 250. “See 725 ILCS 5/107A-2 (West 2018). It has not done the same for voice lineups.”
In re N.A., 2018 IL App (1st) 181332, 125 N.E.3d 990. · cites it 2× “He suggests that the Illinois supreme court has "cast doubt" on the reliability of eyewitness identifications and contends that the legislature shares a similar "skepticism" evidenced by its enactment of the section 107A-2 of the Criminal Code of 1963 ( 725 ILCS 5/107A-2 (West…”
People v. Wells, 2026 IL App (2d) 250045-U. · cites it 4× “725 ILCS 5/107A-2 (West 2022). Defendant argued that each witness received two sets of properly administered photo lineups followed by a third improperly administered lineup.”
People v. Ramos, 2021 IL App (1st) 190894-U. · cites it 4× “He argues that in the live lineups, which were composed of only three, rather than five fillers (725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(3)(D) (West 2016)) he was “noticeably taller” and “lighter skinned” than the other participants, and that in the photo array he was the only “slender” person.”
People v. Carter, 2023 IL App (1st) 200093-U. · cites it 2× “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(i) (West 2014). As a consequence of noncompliance with this provision, “[w]hen warranted by the evidence presented at trial, the jury shall be instructed that it may consider all the facts and circumstances including compliance or noncompliance with this…”
People v. Roberts, 2020 IL App (1st) 172262. · cites it 2× “Specifically, he submits that his attorney was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Jose Cavillo’s pretrial identification because the identification was not recorded and the procedure was thus not conducted in accordance with the requirements of -6- section 107A-2(h) of…”
People v. Minnis, 2026 IL App (1st) 232494. · cites it 11× “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(a)(1) (West 2024). In the case at bar, independent and different administrators were used for each identification.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(2)(3): 1 case
People v. Carroll, 2021 IL App (4th) 200491-U.
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(a)(1): 3 cases
People v. Corral, 2019 IL App (1st) 171501, 126 N.E.3d 632. “¶ 96 We first turn to consider defendant's contention that section 107A-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 ( 725 ILCS 5/107A-2 (West 2016) ) supports his conclusion that the photo array and lineup procedures employed in this case were suggestive.”
People v. Lyles, 2024 IL App (4th) 230650-U.
People v. Minnis, 2026 IL App (1st) 232494. “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(a)(1) (West 2024). In the case at bar, independent and different administrators were used for each identification.”
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(b): 1 case
People v. Minnis, 2026 IL App (1st) 232494. “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(a)(1) (West 2024). In the case at bar, independent and different administrators were used for each identification.”
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(c): 1 case
People v. Johnson, 2024 IL App (1st) 220494, 257 N.E.3d 568. “But when Washington was initially called to the police station on May 3, 2017, to see if she could identify the shooter, Johnson was not yet in custody, so it was not even possible for her to view him in an in-person lineup. Then, after she had positively identified Johnson in a…”
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(e): 1 case
People v. Ablahad, 2021 IL App (1st) 180499-U.
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(e)(1)(A): 1 case
People v. White, No. 1-11-92110 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Aug. 16, 2022).
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(1): 1 case
People v. Minnis, 2026 IL App (1st) 232494. “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(a)(1) (West 2024). In the case at bar, independent and different administrators were used for each identification.”
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(11): 1 case
People v. Lyles, 2024 IL App (4th) 230650-U.
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(3)(B): 2 cases
People v. Ayoubi, 2020 IL App (1st) 180518.
People v. Stubblefield, 2025 IL App (1st) 231153-U.
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(3)(C): 1 case
People v. White, No. 1-11-92110 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Aug. 16, 2022).
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(3)(D): 1 case
People v. Ramos, 2021 IL App (1st) 190894-U. “He argues that in the live lineups, which were composed of only three, rather than five fillers (725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(3)(D) (West 2016)) he was “noticeably taller” and “lighter skinned” than the other participants, and that in the photo array he was the only “slender” person.”
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(4): 3 cases
People v. Ramos, 2021 IL App (1st) 190894-U. “He argues that in the live lineups, which were composed of only three, rather than five fillers (725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(3)(D) (West 2016)) he was “noticeably taller” and “lighter skinned” than the other participants, and that in the photo array he was the only “slender” person.”
People v. Minnis, 2026 IL App (1st) 232494. “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(a)(1) (West 2024). In the case at bar, independent and different administrators were used for each identification.”
People v. White, No. 1-11-92110 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Aug. 16, 2022).
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(g)(3): 1 case
People v. Smith, 2020 IL App (4th) 190803-U.
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(h): 4 cases
People v. Roberts, 2020 IL App (1st) 172262. “) move to suppress Jose Cavillo’s pretrial identification because the identification was not recorded and the procedure was thus not conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 107A- 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/107A-2(h) (West…”
People v. Roberts, 2020 IL App (1st) 172262. “Specifically, he submits that his attorney was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Jose Cavillo’s pretrial identification because the identification was not recorded and the procedure was thus not conducted in accordance with the requirements of -6- section 107A-2(h) of…”
People v. Ramos, 2021 IL App (1st) 190894-U. “He argues that in the live lineups, which were composed of only three, rather than five fillers (725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(3)(D) (West 2016)) he was “noticeably taller” and “lighter skinned” than the other participants, and that in the photo array he was the only “slender” person.”
People v. Minnis, 2026 IL App (1st) 232494. “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(a)(1) (West 2024). In the case at bar, independent and different administrators were used for each identification.”
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(i): 3 cases
People v. Carter, 2023 IL App (1st) 200093-U. “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(i) (West 2014). As a consequence of noncompliance with this provision, “[w]hen warranted by the evidence presented at trial, the jury shall be instructed that it may consider all the facts and circumstances including compliance or noncompliance with this…”
Gonzalez v. Guevara, No. 1:23-cv-14281 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2025).
People v. Carroll, 2021 IL App (4th) 200491-U.
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(j): 1 case
People v. Spates, 2025 IL App (4th) 241163-U.
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(j)(1): 4 cases
People v. Roberts, 2020 IL App (1st) 172262. “) move to suppress Jose Cavillo’s pretrial identification because the identification was not recorded and the procedure was thus not conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 107A- 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/107A-2(h) (West…”
People v. Roberts, 2020 IL App (1st) 172262. “Specifically, he submits that his attorney was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Jose Cavillo’s pretrial identification because the identification was not recorded and the procedure was thus not conducted in accordance with the requirements of -6- section 107A-2(h) of…”
People v. Ramos, 2021 IL App (1st) 190894-U. “He argues that in the live lineups, which were composed of only three, rather than five fillers (725 ILCS 5/107A-2(f)(3)(D) (West 2016)) he was “noticeably taller” and “lighter skinned” than the other participants, and that in the photo array he was the only “slender” person.”
People v. Minnis, 2026 IL App (1st) 232494. “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(a)(1) (West 2024). In the case at bar, independent and different administrators were used for each identification.”
725 ILCS 5/107A-2(j)(2): 2 cases
People v. Carter, 2023 IL App (1st) 200093-U. “” 725 ILCS 5/107A-2(i) (West 2014). As a consequence of noncompliance with this provision, “[w]hen warranted by the evidence presented at trial, the jury shall be instructed that it may consider all the facts and circumstances including compliance or noncompliance with this…”
People v. Smith, 2020 IL App (4th) 190803-U.
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.