99 N.Y.2d 596 (2003)
A showup identification is permissible if conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime and if the procedure is not unduly suggestive.
Summary
Frank Brisco was convicted of attempted burglary. The key evidence was a showup identification made by the victim at the crime scene approximately one hour after the burglary. Brisco, who matched the victim’s initial description, was asked to hold maroon shorts (matching the victim’s description of the perpetrator’s clothing) during the showup. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the showup was reasonable under the circumstances because it was conducted promptly at the crime scene as part of a continuous investigation and the procedure was not unduly suggestive. The court emphasized that the victim independently identified Brisco based on his height, hair color, and build.
Facts
On July 6, 1999, at 11:30 AM, police responded to a reported burglary at 51 Mills Pond Road. The victim described the suspect as a shirtless white male, 18-20 years old with brown hair, muscular build, and wearing maroon shorts. Officers found Brisco, who matched the description, at a nearby house at 11:55 AM. Brisco was shirtless, wearing a towel. Later, he wore tan shorts. Inside the house, officers found wet maroon shorts that Brisco claimed were his. At 12:25 PM, police transported Brisco to the victim’s house, where, while holding the maroon shorts, the victim identified him as the person she saw leaving her house, based on height, hair color, and build.
Procedural History
Brisco was charged with burglary in the second degree and petit larceny. He pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree, conditional upon his right to appeal the suppression ruling related to the showup identification. The trial court upheld the showup identification. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime scene showup identification of the defendant was unduly suggestive because the defendant, wearing tan shorts and no shirt, was asked to hold a pair of maroon shorts that matched the victim’s description of the perpetrator’s clothing.
Holding
No, because the showup was reasonable under the circumstances, taking place at the crime scene within an hour of the crime as part of a continuous investigation, and the procedure was not unduly suggestive, as the victim initially and independently identified the defendant based on his height, hair color, and build.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on precedent allowing showup identifications when conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime and when the procedure used was not unduly suggestive (citing People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997] and People v Johnson, 81 NY2d 828, 831 [1993]). The court found that the showup took place at the scene of the crime within an hour of the crime’s commission as part of a continuous investigation. Crucially, the court emphasized that the victim had independently identified the defendant based on his height, hair color, and build *before* identifying the maroon shorts. The court stated, “the presence of defendant’s maroon shorts, admittedly his own, did not, as a matter of law, negate the reasonableness of the police action.” The dissenting judge argued that the showup was unduly suggestive because Brisco was required to hold the shorts, effectively singling him out as the perpetrator. The dissent also noted that a lineup would have been a more appropriate identification procedure given the circumstances. The majority distinguished this case from others where showups were deemed improper because those cases often involved a greater lapse of time between the crime and the identification. The court emphasizes that determining the timeliness of a showup should not be a “bright-line rule” and should be assessed case-by-case.