Opinion ID: 659744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Admission of Campos' Pretrial Photo Identification of

Text: Amador-Galvan 36 Both defendants contend the district court erred in admitting evidence that Customs Inspector Campos identified defendant Amador-Galvan out of an impermissibly suggestive photo lineup. 37 Although it is unsettled whether we review de novo the constitutionality of pretrial identification procedures, United States v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 580 (9th Cir.1985), or whether we review only for abuse of discretion, United States v. Gregory, 891 F.2d 732, 734 (9th Cir.1989), we uphold the district court's ruling under either standard of review. 38 The trial court may admit identification evidence (1) if the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive; or (2) even if it was unduly suggestive, if it was nonetheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Nash, 946 F.2d 679, 681 (9th Cir.1991). 39 The pretrial identification procedure in the instant case was not unduly suggestive. See United States v. Carbajal, 956 F.2d 924, 929 (9th Cir.1992) (photo spread was not impermissibly suggestive, even where the defendant was the only person in the lineup who wore a wig and had discernible bruises on his face); United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 491-493 (9th Cir.1985) (one man showup at bank with the defendant handcuffed and surrounded by law enforcement officials within an hour and a half of the robbery was suggestive, but not impermissibly so). In the instant case, the district court noted, and Amador-Galvan conceded, that the fact that Campos recognized two of the men did not preclude Campos from identifying one of them as the driver. 40 Even if the identification procedures were unduly suggestive, the identification evidence was nonetheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances. In considering whether an identification is reliable, we consider: (1) the witness' opportunity to observe the suspect at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification confrontation. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972). We find that under Neil v. Biggers, Customs Inspector Campos' identification of Amador-Galvan was reliable. The district court did not err in admitting this evidence.