People v. Montgomery, 88 N.Y.2d 923 (1996)

A police station identification by an experienced undercover officer shortly after a drug purchase from the defendant can be admissible as a confirmatory identification, even without a prior “drive-by” identification, if the circumstances ensure the reliability of the identification.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the admissibility of a station house identification as confirmatory, even without a “drive-by,” because the identification occurred shortly after the undercover officer’s second face-to-face drug transaction with the defendant. An undercover officer bought cocaine from the defendant in an apartment, secured a search warrant, bought cocaine again a week later, and the backup team arrested the defendant. The officer identified the defendant at the station house through a one-way mirror less than five hours after the second purchase. The Court held that the prompt identification following the drug purchase was a proper completion of police procedure, ensuring reliability despite the absence of a drive-by identification.

Facts

An experienced undercover officer purchased a gram of cocaine from the defendant inside a Manhattan apartment.

Based on this purchase, a search warrant was obtained for the premises.

One week later, the same undercover officer returned to the apartment and bought another gram of cocaine from the defendant.

Immediately after leaving the building, the officer radioed his backup team that the “buy had gone down.”

The backup team arrived at the apartment within five minutes to execute the warrant and arrested the defendant and other occupants.

The undercover officer was not present during the search or arrest.

Later that evening, the undercover officer identified the defendant through a one-way mirror at the station house, less than five hours after the second drug purchase.

Procedural History

The hearing court ruled the station house identification admissible as a confirmatory procedure.

The Appellate Division affirmed this ruling.

The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a police station identification can be considered a confirmatory identification and thus admissible when there was no prior “drive-by” identification to confirm that the correct individual was apprehended?

Holding

No, not necessarily. The absence of a “drive-by” does not automatically preclude an identification from being considered confirmatory because other circumstances can provide sufficient assurance of reliability.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts, finding the identification admissible. The court reasoned that the station house identification, occurring only hours after the officer’s second face-to-face transaction with the defendant, constituted “the ordinary and proper completion of an integral police procedure.” The Court declined to impose a per se requirement of a “drive-by” identification for police identifications to be considered confirmatory. It emphasized that courts must be vigilant in assuring the reliability of identifications that have not been shown to be free of suggestive taint. While a “drive-by” is one way to ensure reliability, it is not the only way. The Court highlighted that the search warrant was executed only minutes after the undercover officer left the apartment, which substantially reduced the risk that the wrong person would be taken into custody and the risk of a later misidentification.

The Court acknowledged prior cases such as People v. Wharton and People v. Morales, where “drive-bys” were present. However, it clarified that those cases did not establish a rigid requirement. The key factor is the reliability of the identification, and that can be established through various means. As the court stated, the officer’s identification “constitute[d] the ordinary and proper completion of an integral police procedure.”