Opinion ID: 1948864
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Show-up Identifications

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court's decision not to suppress the two show-up identifications constituted reversible error, arguing that the identification procedures were unduly suggestive and unnecessary because the police had probable cause to arrest appellant without them. We disagree. This court is bound by the trial court's findings on whether identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive and whether an identification was reliable `if they are supported by the evidence and in accordance with the law.' Turner v. United States, 622 A.2d 667, 672 n. 3 (D.C.1993) (quoting Stewart v. United States, 490 A.2d 619, 623 (D.C.1985)). [6] Although we recognize the inherent suggestivity when a single suspect in police custody is presented for identification (a show-up), we have held that a prompt show-up identification `enhances ... reliability' and serves a purpose to `exonerate an innocent person who had been mistakenly apprehended.' Maddox v. United States, 745 A.2d 284, 292 (D.C.2000) (quoting United States v. Hunter, 692 A.2d 1370, 1375 (D.C.1997)). A defendant who moves to suppress an identification must therefore show that the identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. Forte v. United States, 856 A.2d 567, 573 (D.C.2004) (citing Turner, 622 A.2d at 672 n. 4). As the trial judge found, the show-up identifications here were not unduly suggestive. Appellant points out that at the time of the show-ups, he was in custody, handcuffed, and placed under a police spotlight. However, `something more egregious than mere custodial status is required' to establish impermissible suggestivity, Diggs v. United States, 906 A.2d 290, 300 (quoting Singletary v. United States, 383 A.2d 1064, 1068 (D.C.1978)), and the fact that a suspect is handcuffed at the time of the identification does not itself render it impermissibly suggestive. See id. Appellant argues that the police unduly influenced one of the witnesses prior to the show-up by telling her that she was in the police car because she had to ID the guy. We have held, however, that a show-up procedure is not unduly suggestive where, prior to identification, police officers tell the complainant we got two guys in the car similar to the ones you told us about. Singletary, 383 A.2d at 1068. Here, the police gave no further indication to the witnesses as to why they thought they had caught the carjacker. Thus, appellant's custodial status and the officer's comment to the eyewitness did not render the show-up procedures used here unduly suggestive. Appellant also asserts that the show-up identifications were unnecessary because police already had probable cause to arrest and prosecute him without the on-site identifications and the police should have used instead the more reliable police line-up. Appellant's argument is one based more on policy than law, and we have upheld show-up procedures that are not necessary for arrest because they generally render witness identifications more reliable. See Maddox, 745 A.2d at 293 (analyzing post-arrest show-up in hospital under same standard as one conducted to secure arrest). Here, while the police officer who chased appellant was able to make an independent identification, he did not witness the carjacking, and also temporarily lost sight of appellant during the chase. The eyewitnesses, on the other hand, were able to observe the carjacking as it unfolded and see the perpetrator closely under favorable lighting conditions, so their identifications enhanced the government's case. Where the show-up identification procedures were likely reliable and there is no indication that they are being abused by the police officers or unduly suggestive, the fact that they were not absolutely necessary in order to secure arrest does not warrant their suppression. Thus, the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress was not in error. Appellant's convictions are Affirmed.