In re D.M.
94 A.3d 760, 2014 WL 3360507, 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 195 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prolonged investigatory detention under the Fourth Amendment becomes an unconstitutional seizure if the government fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the police acted diligently and that the length of the detention was necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. A record lacking specific, verifiable facts to justify the delay is insufficient to meet the government's burden.
Facts:
- Around 10:00 a.m. on April 14, 2011, Anthony Pickett observed five juveniles behind his neighbor's house from his kitchen window.
- Pickett witnessed one juvenile break a window on the neighbor's back door and enter, followed by two others, one of whom was D.M.
- Pickett clearly saw D.M.'s face when D.M. briefly removed a covering from his face.
- After a period of time, D.M. and the other two individuals exited the house, and all five juveniles fled down an alley.
- Police, responding to a 911 call from Pickett's mother, received a description of the suspects.
- Officers canvassing the area noticed a group of individuals, including D.M., hurry into a nearby apartment building upon seeing a police vehicle.
- Police stopped D.M. and three other young men inside the building; D.M.'s clothing matched the lookout description.
- Police detained D.M. for a show-up identification while releasing the other three juveniles.
Procedural Posture:
- D.M. filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the show-up identification and resulting evidence, arguing the 75-minute detention constituted an unconstitutional seizure.
- The trial court held a suppression hearing and denied D.M.'s motion.
- The trial judge found that the police were 'diligently pursuing the police investigation' and that the duration of the stop was not unreasonable.
- After a bench trial, the trial court convicted D.M. of second-degree burglary, felony destruction of property, and second-degree theft.
- D.M. (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of his suppression motion to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
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 75-minute investigatory detention of a suspect for the purpose of a show-up identification violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures when the government fails to present sufficient evidence that the police acted diligently in arranging the identification?
Opinions:
Majority - King, Senior Judge
Yes, the 75-minute investigatory detention violated the Fourth Amendment. While there is no bright-line rule for the duration of an investigatory stop, the government bears the burden of proving that the police diligently pursued their investigation and that the length of the detention was necessary. In this case, the government failed to meet its burden. The record was too 'thinly developed' to justify the 75-minute delay preceding the show-up identification. Although the government claimed the eyewitness, Pickett, had to return from work, it offered no specific evidence about when police contacted him, where he worked, how long it took him to return, or other facts to demonstrate police diligence and the necessity of the delay. The trial court's finding of diligence was based on speculation, not a preponderance of evidence, rendering the prolonged seizure unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the government carries the evidentiary burden to justify the duration of a Terry stop. It serves as a crucial reminder to prosecutors that they must build a detailed factual record at suppression hearings to demonstrate police diligence, especially in cases of prolonged detention. The court's refusal to accept conclusory assertions or to fill in evidentiary gaps with speculation underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the reasonableness of police conduct. This case establishes a practical boundary, suggesting that detentions exceeding an hour for a show-up identification will face high scrutiny and require specific, compelling justification from the government to be deemed constitutional.
