Definition
In law, identification carries two related but distinct clusters of meaning:
1. Evidentiary identification. The act or process of proving that a particular person, object, or document before a tribunal is the very same person, object, or document alleged, charged, or described in the proceedings. A witness who recognizes the defendant at trial as the person she observed committing the crime is making an evidentiary identification. So is a detective who testifies that the firearm recovered from a search is the same weapon logged into evidence. This is identification as a mode of proof — a foundational step before the trier of fact can give the item or person its intended legal significance.
2. Identity documents. In a secondary but pervasive modern usage, identification refers to a document or set of documents that establishes who a person is — a driver's license, passport, national identity card, or similar credential. This meaning dominates everyday administrative, regulatory, and transactional law contexts, even though it rarely appears in older treatises under this headword.
A third, more specialized use appears in:
3. Tax and commercial law. In 1031 like-kind exchange doctrine, identification is a technical term of art referring to the taxpayer's formal designation of replacement property within the 45-day statutory window. Failure to meet identification requirements defeats the exchange and triggers recognition of gain.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The act of identifying which one or which thing; the combination of identifying and confirming an identity; a document serving as evidence of a person's identity.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act of identifying, or proving to be the same; also, the state of being identified.
The common meanings and the core legal meaning overlap substantially, which is why the term rarely causes confusion at the definitional level. The gap arises in specificity: ordinary usage treats identification loosely as any act of recognizing something, while evidentiary law demands that identification satisfy formal foundational requirements before it is admissible. Saying "I know that's him" is identification in the common sense; meeting the legal threshold for admissible in-court or out-of-court identification is a more demanding and regulated process.
---
Common Confusion
Identification vs. authentication. These terms are often used interchangeably in casual legal writing, but Federal Rule of Evidence 901 treats them as a unified requirement under a single heading while doctrine distinguishes them in practice. Authentication typically refers to establishing that a document, recording, or tangible item is genuine and what its proponent claims. Identification refers more specifically to connecting a person, thing, or writing to the facts at issue — i.e., that this item is the one involved in the events in question. In many cases both operations are performed simultaneously, but the analytical distinction matters when challenging admissibility.
Identification vs. recognition. In eyewitness evidence contexts, identification and recognition are sometimes used interchangeably, but courts and psychologists draw a functional distinction. Recognition is the cognitive process; identification is the legal act of asserting that recognized person as the perpetrator. The distinction becomes important in reliability challenges and in the law governing suggestive identification procedures.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Lineup identification. A witness is presented with a group of individuals (live or photographic) and asked to identify the person involved in the crime. Subject to due process scrutiny for undue suggestiveness.
Show-up identification. A one-on-one confrontation between a witness and a single suspect, often at or near the crime scene shortly after the event. Courts scrutinize show-ups more strictly given the inherent suggestiveness of the procedure.
In-court identification. A witness identifies the defendant in open court during testimony. Challenged when prior out-of-court identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive.
Out-of-court identification. An identification made prior to trial, such as in a lineup or photo array. Admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) as a prior statement of identification, not subject to the usual hearsay bar.
Property identification. Proof that a specific object — stolen goods, contraband, a murder weapon — is the same item connected to the offense. Foundational requirement before the item is admitted into evidence.
1031 replacement property identification. A formal written designation of replacement property submitted within 45 days of closing on the relinquished property in a like-kind exchange under § 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers in the Law Mind corpus will encounter identification in at least three distinct doctrinal neighborhoods, and conflating them produces bad research.
In evidence law, the central research question is usually admissibility and reliability. The controlling framework is Federal Rule of Evidence 901 (authentication and identification as a condition precedent to admissibility) and Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) (prior identification as non-hearsay). For eyewitness identification specifically, the due process reliability framework adds a constitutional layer. Researchers should note that Rule 801(d)(1)(C) has generated significant circuit-level disagreement about what "identification of a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier" requires — particularly whether the declarant must testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination.
In criminal procedure, identification evidence intersects with Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment doctrine. Compelled participation in a lineup implicates due process but generally not the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (since identification is non-testimonial). The right to counsel at post-indictment lineups is a distinct issue with its own doctrinal trajectory.
In real estate and tax transactions, researchers must shift registers entirely. The 45-day identification window in 1031 exchanges is a hard statutory deadline with strict formal requirements — number of identified properties, written notice, delivery rules — that bear no resemblance to evidentiary identification doctrine. Searching the corpus for identification in a transactional context without filtering for this usage will return irrelevant results.
Historical sources are largely consistent in treating identification as an evidentiary concept; the tax and transactional uses and the identity-documents usage are entirely absent from older dictionaries and require supplementation from modern statutory and regulatory sources.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both editions) and Burrill's Law Dictionary converge on the same core definition: identification is proof of identity — the process of establishing that a person or thing before the court is the very same one alleged or described. All three sources illustrate the concept with the same class of examples: a witness recognizing the defendant in the dock, or stolen goods, handwriting, or counterfeit coin being traced to the item in question.
Burrill adds the etymological note (idem, "the same," and facere, "to make") and frames identification as a making out to be the same — a formulation that usefully captures the constructive, proof-dependent character of legal identification as opposed to mere assertion.
What all three sources omit is substantial by modern standards. None addresses the reliability framework for eyewitness identification that has developed since the mid-twentieth century. None addresses out-of-court lineup or photo array procedures. None anticipates the hearsay treatment of prior identification statements or the constitutional dimensions of identification procedures. The tax-law and identity-document usages are entirely absent. Researchers relying solely on these sources will have a sound foundation for the concept's evidentiary core but will find no guidance on any of its procedural, constitutional, or transactional dimensions.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Eyewitness identification procedures are an area of significant state-level variation. Several states have enacted detailed statutory or court-rule requirements governing lineup administration, sequential versus simultaneous presentation, and blind administration procedures that go well beyond federal constitutional minimums. State law governs these procedures in state criminal proceedings; federal courts apply the due process reliability analysis without the additional procedural overlay.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Authentication and Identification — Rule 901 General Requirement (civpro_200): Primary reference for the evidentiary foundation requirement and the relationship between authentication and identification under the Federal Rules.
Prior Statements of Witnesses — Rule 801(d)(1) (civpro_182): Covers the treatment of prior out-of-court identification statements as non-hearsay; essential for understanding the admissibility of lineup and photo array identifications.
1031 Like-Kind Exchanges — Identification Rules, Timing, Qualified Intermediaries, and Boot (realestate_79): Governs the formal identification requirement in tax-deferred exchanges; a distinct doctrinal context requiring separate research.
---