People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921 (1989)

A pretrial Wade hearing is not automatically required when a trained undercover officer identifies a defendant shortly after a drug transaction, but the specific facts of the encounter must be examined to determine if the identification procedure was unduly suggestive.

Summary

Wharton was convicted of drug sale and possession based on an undercover officer’s identification. The officer bought drugs from Wharton, radioed a description to a backup team who arrested him, and then identified Wharton at the precinct three hours later. Wharton’s motion for a Wade hearing to suppress the identification was denied. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while a Wade hearing isn’t automatically precluded for police identifications, the circumstances here didn’t suggest undue suggestiveness because the officer was trained, the viewing was close in time to the arrest, and it served to confirm the correct person was arrested. The dissent argued for a hearing to explore potential suggestiveness, emphasizing the fleeting nature of the initial encounter.

Facts

An undercover police officer purchased cocaine from Wharton in a “buy and bust” operation. The officer radioed Wharton’s description to a backup team, who arrested Wharton at the scene. Within five minutes, the undercover officer drove past and saw Wharton being detained. Approximately three hours later, the same undercover officer identified Wharton through a one-way mirror at the police precinct.

Procedural History

Wharton moved to suppress the identification testimony, seeking a Wade hearing. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Wharton was convicted by a jury. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether a pretrial station house identification of the defendant by an undercover police officer, who purchased drugs from the defendant in a “buy and bust” operation, requires a Wade hearing to determine if the identification was tainted by unnecessarily suggestive factors.

Holding

No, because the identification was made by a trained undercover officer shortly after the drug transaction as a completion of an integral police procedure and to ensure that the correct person was detained, and the circumstances did not suggest undue suggestiveness.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the identification was made by a trained undercover officer who observed Wharton during a face-to-face drug transaction, knowing Wharton would be arrested soon after. The station house viewing occurred at a place and time sufficiently connected and contemporaneous to the arrest, constituting the ordinary and proper completion of an integral police procedure. This ensured an innocent person was not mistakenly detained. The officer’s participation in the operation was planned, and he was experienced and expected to observe Wharton carefully for later identification. The court distinguished this situation from show-up identifications by civilian witnesses, which are more prone to misidentification. The court emphasized they were not creating a categorical rule exempting police officer identifications from Wade hearings but held that based on the record, the trial court did not err in denying the hearing. Titone, J., dissented, arguing that the fleeting nature of the initial contact warranted a hearing to explore potential suggestiveness, citing CPL 60.25 and 60.30 regarding constitutional rights during identification procedures. The dissent highlighted examples from other cases where suggestive circumstances, revealed during Wade hearings, tainted police officer identifications. The dissent argued that the majority’s approach created an “insuperable threshold” by requiring knowledge of the specific events before granting a hearing.