Opinion ID: 2975264
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Suggestive Identification Claim

Text: An identification violates a defendant’s right to due process when the identification procedure “was so unnecessarily suggestive as to run the risk of irreparable mistaken identification.” Howard v. Bouchard, 405 F.3d 459, 469 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Recognizing that reliability is the “linchpin” in determining the admissibility of identification testimony, “[w]e thus first assess whether the identification was unnecessarily suggestive, then assess whether the identification was nonetheless reliable.” Id. Importantly, even if the confrontation is suggestive, an identification will be admissible if it is reliable. Id. (citations omitted). In determining the reliability of an identification, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the defendant at the initial observation, (2) the witness’s degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the defendant, (4) the witness’s level of certainty at the pretrial identification, and (5) the length of time between the initial observation and the identification. Id. at 472 (citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200). Petitioner argues on appeal that the showup procedure in which he was identified was impermissibly suggestive. He claims that because he was shown to witnesses while in the back of a police car and because he was presented as the sole suspect, he was the subject of a one-onone showup. He further contends that because the police had him in custody and were waiting for the witnesses to make an identification, the witnesses did not have time to observe Petitioner and to consider whether he comported with their recollection, as they would have had in a lineup. He also claims that the police “inappropriately played to the witnesses’ fears” because as far as -6- No. 05-6473 Drew v. Parker the witnesses knew, Petitioner, who apparently had reason to hide from the police, would be released absent their identification. He thus concludes that “[a]ll these factors combined to create an impermissibly suggestive situation,” giving rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misrepresentation. He contends that this amounts to a per se violation of his due process rights. Petitioner next argues that even if the showup was not a per se violation of his due process rights, the identification still failed to satisfy the reliability criteria of Biggers. He emphasizes that Ms. Capley (1) was busy cashing checks when the criminal entered the store; (2) was distracted with other tasks, which limited her “opportunity and degree of attention”; (3) described the thief in a “fairly vague” manner; (4) could have had a clouded recollection because Petitioner had been in the store earlier that day; and (5) viewed Petitioner two hours after the crime occurred, which is a “significant” delay. With respect to Ms. Sigler’s identification, he notes that she (1) did not actually see the thief take money from the cash register; (2) was on the phone at the time the thief entered the store; and (3) had a limited opportunity to view the thief. Petitioner concludes by arguing that both witnesses had little time to observe him in the car and to reflect on whether he was the same man who robbed the store, and that the fact that he was seated when he was identified prevented the witnesses from observing what he refers to as “significant traits,” such as his height, clothing, posture, and mannerisms. The Tennessee state court’s ruling with respect to the identification procedure was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Petitioner’s first argument is easily dismissed. He asserts that the showup procedure was impermissibly -7- No. 05-6473 Drew v. Parker suggestive for a number of reasons and then apparently argues that the showup amounts to a per se violation of his right to due process. Under the law of this Court, even if an identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the identification is still admissible if it is reliable. Howard, 405 F.3d at 469, 472. Indeed, conducting a showup is consistent with legitimate law enforcement purposes, such as allowing identification before the suspect has had the opportunity to alter his appearance and permitting the quick release of innocent persons. See, e.g., United States v. Sleet, 54 F.3d 303, 309 (7th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 726, 729 (11th Cir. 1987). Thus, Petitioner’s first argument fails. His second argument similarly lacks merit. Even if the identification procedure were impermissibly suggestive, the Tennessee state court did not err in concluding that the identification was reliable according to Biggers. With respect to the opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime inquiry, the state court found that both Ms. Sigler and Ms. Capley clearly saw Petitioner standing in line and taking the money from the register, State v. Drew, No. M2000-01853-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1028821, at  (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 7, 2001), and even Petitioner admits that Ms. Capley had the opportunity to see the thief for a few minutes. Petitioner’s statements that (1) Ms. Capley was waiting on other customers and was distracted with other tasks and (2) Ms. Sigler did not actually see the thief take the money from the cash drawer and she was on the phone when the thief entered the store, accomplish little to undermine the state court’s finding that Ms. Sigler and Ms. Capley had “ample opportunity to view [Petitioner].” Id. This is especially true considering that both Ms. Sigler and Ms. Capley described the thief to police as a black male wearing a light colored shirt and dark pants, and Ms. -8- No. 05-6473 Drew v. Parker Sigler described in detail features of the thief’s face. Id. Furthermore, the Tennessee state court noted that Ms. Sigler saw the money in Petitioner’s hand as he was drawing it back from the register, id. at , and even Petitioner admitted that she saw the thief fleeing with the money in his hand. With respect to the witness’ degree of attention, Petitioner attacks the identification as he does with respect to the opportunity to view the criminal inquiry, and he also contends that the descriptions given were “fairly vague.” His arguments are unavailing in light of the state court’s finding that each of the eyewitnesses “clearly s[aw] the defendant standing in line and taking money from the cash register.” Drew, 2001 WL 1028821, at . Indeed, it is telling that Petitioner never disputes this finding by the Tennessee court; rather, he merely insinuates that the witnesses might have been distracted prior to the thief taking the money out of the cash register. The accuracy of the prior description also weighs against Petitioner. His only argument with respect to this inquiry is again an unsupported assertion that the descriptions given were “fairly vague.” That contention, however, is belied by the facts that Ms. Capley and Ms. Sigler both described the thief as a black male with a light colored shirt and dark pants and that Ms. Sigler even gave a detailed description of the thief’s face, nose, and lips. Drew, 2001 WL 1028821, at . The remaining factors of the Biggers inquiry also weigh against Petitioner. He contends that because the witnesses observed him while he was seated in a police car, their testimony is not reliable, as they could not observe his height, clothing, posture, and mannerisms. Such speculative claims fail to rebut the fact that, when questioned, each witness was “very certain” -9- No. 05-6473 Drew v. Parker that Petitioner was the thief. Drew, 2001 WL 1028821, at . Moreover, although Petitioner contends that the specific facts of the crime tend to make short delays “significant,” only two hours elapsed between the time of the crime and the identification. Id. Petitioner cites no authority in support for his contention that this is a significant delay. The state court’s ruling with respect to the identification procedure thus was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.