WASHINGTON ( CNN ) -- Barion Perry was detained at the crime scene , handcuffed after being suspected of breaking into cars . Without specifically being asked by police to identify the suspect , a neighbor pointed out Perry from a nearby window as the alleged thief . Now , the Supreme Court has found that initial identification was not overly suggestive and did not violate the due process rights of the defendant . The 8-1 ruling Wednesday is a victory for the state and for law enforcement . But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned police and prosecutors in general to be careful about the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony , when such evidence may be generated and manipulated by police . She said , however , that was not the case here . `` We do not doubt the either the fallibility or the importance of eyewitness evidence generally , or the caution appropriate whenever suggestive circumstances may have influenced an identification , '' she wrote for the majority . `` Safeguards built into our adversary system [ of justice ] can serve to inhibit juries from placing undue weight on eyewitness and other testimony of questionable reliability ... Absent improper police conduct , these safeguards , we hold , keep the introduction of eyewitness identification evidence within constitutional bounds . '' Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone dissenter . The court 's narrow ruling was not likely to open the legal floodgates to a range of new exceptions of evidence jurors would be excluded from hearing at trial , as some states had feared . The Perry appeal also raised larger questions about the unique power of eyewitness identifications to sway jurors , and whether innocent people are unfairly being sent to prison , particularly to death row . The court has not taken a hard look at the issue since 1977 , and the opinion Wednesday only dealt indirectly with the concerns . The unique facts of the Perry case in fact , left a clear rule on the boundaries of using unreliable identification evidence even more elusive and muddled , despite the high court 's current intervention . The message from the high court : A broader rule on the use of all eyewitness testimony is now not necessary , and that judges and juries can make those discretionary decisions , depending on each individual case . Several justices noted during November 's oral arguments Perry 's lawyers presented strong evidence , and that reforms may be necessary . But others on the bench wondered whether such changes are mandated under the Constitution , and if they would apply in other areas of criminal justice where evidence is problematic . The incident happened in August 2008 in Nashua , New Hampshire . A black male was reported at the back of an apartment parking lot in the middle of the night . A city police officer arrived and found Perry carrying two amplifiers , which he claimed he found on the ground . An apartment resident then approached police and said his car was broken into , information relayed by his neighbor . While Perry was detained in the parking lot , that officer went to the apartment to interview the neighbor . When asked to describe the suspect , she said it was a `` tall black man , '' but offered no other physical details . When asked by the officer for more information , the neighbor looked back and said `` it was the man that was in the back parking lot standing with the police officer , '' according to court records . Later at the police station , the female neighbor was unable to identify Perry from a photo lineup . Perry was then arrested , subsequently convicted of theft , and given a three- to 10-year prison term . He appealed , saying the eyewitness testimony should have been suppressed . Subsequent state courts rejected his claims that due process protections apply even when the suggestive circumstances were not `` intentionally orchestrated by the police . `` Eyewitness identification has been closely scrutinized by a range of legal groups and social scientists -- some 2,000 empirical studies , in fact , over the past three decades , according to one legal brief filed with the high court . It has also become a staple of crime dramas : a witness rises from the stand , points to the defendant and says `` That 's the man who did it , I 'm sure , your Honor . '' But not always . A variety of all-too-human factors can distort , manipulate , or mislead a person 's memory , whether spurred by police involvement or not . A new book by law professor Brandon Garrett called `` Convicting the Innocent '' found the initial 250 DNA exonerations around the United States came about after 190 of the prisoners were convicted based on mistaken eyewitnesses . The 14th Amendment to the Constitution mandates the government not `` deprive any person of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law . '' That has led to a long line of jurisprudence over what areas of the criminal justice system are covered by the broad provision . The conservative high court majority two years ago said inmates could not go to court to demand , under due process , DNA testing to establish their innocence . `` We are reluctant to enlist the federal judiciary in creating new constitutional code of rules for handling DNA , '' said Chief Justice John Roberts at the time , suggesting that was best left to legislatures . The eyewitness case is Perry v. New Hampshire ( 10-8974 ) .
The justices rule 10 - 9 on an issue of evidence in a criminal case . The majority held that an initial identification did not violate due process . Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone dissenter .