People v. Gordon, 76 N.Y.2d 595 (1990)
r
r
A station house showup identification by an undercover police officer is irredeemably suggestive and inadmissible when there is a significant lapse of time between the crime and the showup, the showup is not part of an integral police procedure, and the defendant is presented in a suggestive manner.
r
r
Summary
r
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction, holding that a station house showup identification by an undercover officer was unduly suggestive and inadmissible. The undercover officer had purchased drugs from the defendant on November 27, 1984, but did not identify him until a showup at the station house on December 7, 1984, after the defendant’s arrest on separate charges. The Court emphasized that the 10-day lapse, combined with the suggestive nature of the showup (defendant handcuffed to other suspects), created a high risk of misidentification and required suppression of the identification evidence. The court also ruled that if the prosecution intended to provide in-court identification of the defendant by the officer at a new trial, the identification must be scrutinized at a Wade hearing to ensure it is free of taint and based on an independent source.
r
r
Facts
r
On November 27, 1984, an undercover officer bought cocaine in a Bronx apartment after being directed there by the defendant. The officer did not radio a description of the defendant. On December 7, 1984, the same officer returned to the apartment and made another drug purchase from two other men. Following this second buy, police executed a search warrant and arrested the defendant and others. At the time of the arrest on December 7, the defendant was pointing a gun at the detetctive. He was arrested and charged with possession. At a station house showup later that night, the undercover officer identified the defendant as the person involved in the November 27 transaction. The defendant was handcuffed to the two men involved in the December 7 buy.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The defendant’s pretrial motion for a Wade hearing to challenge the admissibility of the identification was denied. At trial, the undercover officer testified about the station house showup identification and also identified the defendant in court. The jury convicted the defendant of sale of a controlled substance related to the November 27 incident and possession charges stemming from the December 7 arrest. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the station house showup identification of the defendant by the undercover officer was unduly suggestive, thus requiring suppression of the identification evidence.
r
2. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction on the December 7 criminal possession charges.
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because the showup was conducted ten days after the initial encounter, was not part of an integral police procedure, and was inherently suggestive due to the defendant being handcuffed to other suspects.
r
2. Yes, because there was sufficient evidence presented to support the jury’s finding that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the drugs found on December 7.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court relied on United States v. Wade, which established the need to scrutinize identification evidence for suggestiveness. The Court distinguished this case from People v. Wharton and People v. Morales, which allowed showup identifications by trained officers in certain limited circumstances (e.g., a confirmatory identification shortly after a buy-and-bust). Here, the 10-day lapse between the drug sale and the showup, combined with the suggestive setting (defendant handcuffed to the other suspects), made the identification unreliable. The court reasoned that the showup was not part of an integral police procedure because the November 27 operation was not a