The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and sent the matter back for a Wade hearing to determine whether the eyewitness had an independent basis for his in-court identification of the defendant. The show-up identification made by the eyewitness was deemed invalid and should have been suppressed:
…[D]efendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress showup identification testimony with respect to him. We agree. “Showup identifications are disfavored, since they are suggestive by their very nature” …. . Here, the showup identification procedure was conducted in the parking lot of a police station, approximately 90 minutes after the occurrence of the crime, while defendant was handcuffed and while uniformed police officers and ambulance personnel were in the parking lot. The totality of the circumstances of this showup identification procedure presses judicial tolerance beyond its limits …, and we conclude under the facts and circumstances of this case that the showup identification procedure was infirm… . People v Burnice, 1343, 4th Dept 1-3-14