Opinion ID: 2516369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: On-the-Scene Show-Up Identification

Text: ś 31 Defendant, citing State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 698 P.2d 678 (1985), argues that show-up identification procedures are inherently suggestive and that their only justification is to ensure that suspects are detained no longer than necessary before determining whether there is sufficient basis for arrest. Defendant notes that courts employ five factors to evaluate the reliability of show-up procedures. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-201, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). Applying those factors, defendant asserts that his identification by Mr. and Mrs. Walker was unreliable because they (1) had a short opportunity to view the suspects during their interaction; (2) were not attentive to the scene; (3) provided generic rather than specific descriptions of the suspects; (4) were uncertain whether they could identify the suspects if they encountered them again; and, (5) were rushed by police to make a positive identification. See id. Defendant further argues that aside from the unreliability inherent in show-ups, the show-up in the present case was unjustified because when Officer Ebert learned of the pistol in defendant's waistband, the decision had already been made to arrest him. ś 32 Defendant says police could have conducted a live line-up that would have avoided the inherent prejudice which attends the one-on-one identification procedure. Defendant argues, in any event, the state cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that the pretrial identification was not unduly suggestive. See State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384, 453 P.2d 951, 955 (1969). ś 33 In response, the state asserts that while a defendant has a due process right to a fair identification procedure, State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147, 154, 677 P.2d 920, 927 (1983), he has no constitutional right to a physical line-up. See State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 30, 770 P.2d 328, 334 (1989). [O]ne man showups are permissible under State v. Armijo, 26 Ariz.App. 521, 523, 549 P.2d 616, 618 (1976). ś 34 The Walkers initially interacted with defendant for approximately twenty minutes. Cf. State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 546, 804 P.2d 72, 79 (1990) (witness encounter of six minutes with defendant was adequate to establish reliability of witness' identification of defendant). The Walkers paid close attention to the defendant because they arrived in the aftermath of an automobile accident and rendered assistance to the defendant. See State v. Smith, 146 Ariz. 491, 497, 707 P.2d 289, 295 (1985) (a lack of diversion at the crime scene bolsters reliability of witness identification). The Walkers' description of the suspects was detailed and accurate, including the number of earrings defendant was wearing, DeShaw's unusual haircut, and the unique jacket worn by one of the suspects. While the show-up occurred almost twelve hours after the first encounter with defendant and DeShaw, the Walkers were unequivocal in identifying the two, and the record contradicts any notion that the twelve-hour period rendered the identification unreliable. Cf., e.g., State v. Dixon, 153 Ariz. 151, 155, 735 P.2d 761, 765 (1987) (witness identification reliable after a few hours); State v. Strickland, 113 Ariz. 445, 448, 556 P.2d 320, 323 (1976) (ten days between witness and subsequent identification of defendant does not necessarily render identification unreliable). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the Walkers' show-up identification of defendant was fully reliable. Cf. Armijo, 26 Ariz.App. at 524, 549 P.2d at 619. ś 35 We conclude the show-up was justified and indeed was not suggestive under Biggers. Police need not take time for a line-up when searching for a missing person, who may be a kidnapping or homicide victim. At the time of the show-up, Cabral had not been located. While a line-up may be preferable, defendant's due process rights were not violated because the show-up identification procedure in this case was reliable. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114-17, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); State v. Chappie, 135 Ariz. 281, 286, 660 P.2d 1208, 1213 (1983).