THE DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON THE DILEMMA ENCOUNTERED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES WHO MAY BE UNABLE TO SECURE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AGAINST A SUSPECT TO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NO CLEAR DETERMINATION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COMPELLING A SUSPECT TO APPEAR IN A LINEUP ABSENT PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, THE APPARENT CONSENSUS OF THE COURTS IS THAT SUCH DETENTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE WHERE THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE LINKING THE SUSPECT TO THE CRIME SO AS TO RENDER THE SEIZURE REASONABLE, I.E., PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE DETENTION. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WHERE A SUSPECT IS NONETHELESS ORDERED TO APPEAR IN A LINEUP WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, HIS MOST EFFECTIVE REMEDY MAY BE PURSUED ONLY AFTER HE IS IDENTIFIED, BY A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE IDENTIFICATION. HOWEVER, THE WITNESS' IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUSPECT WILL NOT BE SUPPRESSED WHERE IT IS BASED UPON AN 'INDEPENDENT SOURCE.' THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT IN VIEW OF THE DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY THE SUBJECT OF A LINEUP ORDER IN SECURING RELIEF, THE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT OF SAFEGUARDS ENSURING THE INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT DURING THE LINEUP, LIMITING THE LENGTH OF THE DETENTION, AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN POLICE CONDUCT SUCH AS QUESTIONING THE SUSPECT DURING THAT PERIOD ARE IN ORDER. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)