If a surveillance photo of an actual criminal taken during the commission of a crime is shown to an eyewitness, a subsequent ID would not be considered tainted or inadmissible as evidence. This article presents five cases from around the United States that clearly make this distinction (U.S. v. Ervin, U.S. v. Evans, U.S. v. Beck, People v. Ingle, and Jackson v. State). Admissibility issues are created if a mug shot of a person suspected of a crime was shown to a witness and then the witness was presented with a display or a lineup that included the suspect. This procedure would be suggestive in nature and be considered inadmissible. The courts have recognized a distinction where the pre-ID picture or video shown is of the crime as it occurred or of the perpetrator as he fled. The general rule that surveillance photos may be exhibited to the witness before seeking an ID is drawn from both State and Federal court opinions from a number of areas.