Howard v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
954 A.2d 415 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A prompt, on-scene show-up identification is not rendered impermissibly suggestive merely because the suspect is handcuffed and in police custody, as such procedures are considered to enhance reliability and serve to quickly exonerate innocent individuals.

Facts:

On August 30, 2003, an individual, later identified as Appellant, posed as a window washer at a gas station and sprayed Susan Saffer in the face with window cleaner.
Appellant then displayed a gun in his waistband and forced Saffer to surrender the keys to her car.
As Appellant drove away in Saffer's car, her friend, Patricia Elliot, alerted a nearby police officer, who initiated a pursuit.
Appellant crashed the car during the chase, exited the vehicle, and fled on foot.
The pursuing officer briefly lost sight of Appellant but soon found him hiding behind a trash can and apprehended him.
Fourteen minutes after the carjacking, police brought Saffer and Elliot in separate vehicles to the scene of the arrest.
Both Saffer and Elliot immediately and separately identified Appellant as the perpetrator during the show-up procedure.

Procedural Posture:

Appellant's counsel reported to the trial court that Appellant was mute and non-responsive following his arrest.
The trial court ordered a series of mental health and competency evaluations, initially resulting in findings that Appellant was incompetent to stand trial.
After treatment, St. Elizabeths Hospital reported that Appellant had become competent to stand trial and was criminally responsible for his actions.
The trial judge conducted a competency hearing and ruled that Appellant was competent, finding his muteness to be volitional.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress the show-up identifications, which the trial judge denied after a hearing.
Following a trial, a jury convicted Appellant of carjacking, firearm possession, and other related charges.
Appellant appealed his convictions to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the intermediate appellate court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a prompt, on-scene show-up identification procedure, conducted while a suspect is handcuffed and in police custody, constitute an impermissibly suggestive procedure that violates due process?

Opinions:

Majority - Ruiz, Associate Judge

No. A prompt show-up identification procedure is not impermissibly suggestive simply because the suspect is in custody and handcuffed. While show-up procedures are inherently suggestive, their promptness enhances reliability and serves the important function of exonerating innocent persons who may have been mistakenly apprehended. To suppress an identification, a defendant must show that the procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Standard elements of an arrest, such as being handcuffed or in police custody, do not meet this high standard without additional egregious conduct by the police. Furthermore, the argument that a show-up is unnecessary because probable cause for arrest already exists is a policy argument, as the court has upheld such procedures for their ability to enhance the reliability of an identification, not merely to secure an arrest.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the established judicial deference to prompt, on-scene show-up identifications as a valid law enforcement tool. It clarifies that the ordinary circumstances of a custodial arrest, such as the use of handcuffs and police presence, are not sufficient grounds to deem an identification procedure unconstitutionally suggestive. The ruling places a high burden on defendants to demonstrate truly egregious or coercive police conduct beyond the inherent suggestiveness of a show-up. This precedent solidifies the justification for show-ups based on their reliability and efficiency, rather than their necessity for establishing probable cause.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Howard v. United States (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature