Can a Detective “Identify” You from a Masked Video in Orlando?

By: John Guidry

Ever meet someone who thinks they know everything? Those folks present a unique problem for the court system. Judges have to act like a filter, tailoring witness testimony only to the things a witness is actually qualified to discuss.

Could you imagine if the corporate news channels had such a filter on their commentators? How many times have you seen someone on TV “blabbing” about the Constitution, yet they haven’t read it? How many times have you heard someone presenting a Marxist position, yet you know they’ve never read Das Kapital? Usually, these folks have only read what someone else wrote about Marx, or what someone else wrote about what another person wrote about him.

In a criminal trial, we don’t allow that kind of “telephone game.” Witnesses are limited in their ability to give an opinion to the jury. It’s a “sad but true” reality that prosecutors often try to use an officer’s badge to turn a guess into a fact. A recent Florida case takes a hard look at where the line is drawn when it comes to surveillance video.

Facing charges based on a “blurry” video identification in Orlando? Don’t let a detective’s opinion take the place of actual evidence. Call John Guidry today at (407) 423-1117.

The Legal Breakdown: Alvarez v. State

The case of Alvarez v. State, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), involved a horrific crime—a robbery and first-degree murder at a Circle K where two employees were killed. The store’s video surveillance showed two masked robbers enter with gloves and firearms.

• The Detective’s Claim: The prosecutor put a detective on the stand who admitted he had watched the grainy video “probably fifty to seventy-five times.” He claimed that because he watched it so much, he could “ID” the suspects and determine their skin color, despite the masks.
• The Defense Objection: My colleagues in that case did exactly what a trial lawyer should do: they objected. They pointed out that the officer wasn’t an expert on identification. Since the jury had already seen the video, the officer was in the exact same position as the jury. Letting him give an opinion was basically telling the jury how to think.
• The Court’s Ruling: The appellate court overturned the murder conviction. They reasoned that when a police officer gives “impermissible identification testimony,” there is a dangerous risk that jurors will simply defer to the officer’s “special training” or assume the cop knows some “insider” info that wasn’t presented at trial.

The “Same Position” Rule

Here is the legal bottom line: if a witness didn’t actually see the crime happen with their own eyes, and they are simply watching a video that the jury is also watching, they are a “mere mortal.” They are in the same position as the jury. In those cases, the witness cannot testify to identification. The jury must be free to make those conclusions on their own without the “bullshit” of an officer’s opinion tipping the scales.

John’s Takeaways

• The Badge is Not a Magic Lens: Just because a detective watches a video 75 times doesn’t make their eyes better than a juror’s eyes.
• Opinion vs. Fact: Witnesses can testify about things they actually saw (distances, sizes, weights), but they cannot give “identification opinions” from a video the jury has already seen.
• The Risk of Deference: Jurors tend to believe the “typical script” of a police officer. When an officer claims to see a face behind a mask, it creates an “inherent prejudice” that is hard to overcome without a strong defense.
• Failure of Proof: If the State’s only way to identify a suspect is through an officer’s “interpretation” of a video, that is a massive failure of proof.
• Expertise Matters: Unless someone is a qualified expert in forensic digital imaging or facial recognition technology, their opinion on a blurry video is just “blabbing.”

The justice system is harsh, and it is “insane” to think that a person’s life can depend on a detective’s subjective interpretation of a video. Whether you are in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard, or Volusia County, you have a right to a trial where the jury—not the police—decides what the evidence means.

I’ve been defending the citizens of Central Florida since 1993, and I know how to hold the line against “expert” opinions that aren’t based on the law. If you’re being identified by a cop who wasn’t even there, give me a call.

Facing these charges? Call John at (407) 423-1117.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.