Final answer:
The claim regarding the admissibility of statements made during a non-testimonial identification procedure being contingent upon an attorney's presence is false. The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination requires informing suspects of their Miranda rights during custodial interrogations, but this does not generally apply to non-testimonial evidence collection.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that 'any statements a suspect makes during a non-testimonial identification procedure are inadmissible unless the suspect's attorney is present' is false. The controlling principle here is the protection against self-incrimination as provided by the Fifth Amendment and clarified in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that prosecutors could not use statements from custodial interrogation unless procedural safeguards were employed to protect the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights.
These include informing suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during interrogations. If these rights are not communicated to the suspects, then any statements they make may be deemed inadmissible. However, the Miranda rights relate to custodial interrogations, and non-testimonial identification procedures (like being in a lineup, giving fingerprints, or other physical evidence) are not generally subject to these same rights to counsel. Therefore, incriminatory statements made during such procedures can potentially be admissible even without the presence of an attorney, though this is a complex area of law and specific circumstances can vary.