During a non-testimonial identification procedure, the statements are admissible only if the suspect's attorney is present.

• A. Admissible
• B. Admissible only with judge approval
• C. Admissible only if the suspect waives rights
• D. Admissible only if the police obtain a warrant

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that non-testimonial identification procedures (like lineups or show-ups) produce identification evidence, not sworn testimony or statements given in response to interrogation. Because they aren’t custodial interrogations, the statements made during these procedures aren’t governed by the Miranda rule, and their admissibility isn’t contingent on the suspect’s attorney being present. In other words, simply having counsel in the room isn’t what makes these statements admissible; they can be admitted as identification evidence so long as the procedure isn’t so unduly suggestive as to violate due process. The other options—requiring judge approval, a rights waiver, or a warrant—aren’t the controlling requirements for admitting statements from a non-testimonial identification.