United States v. Arthur

A Boston police officer spotted two men, including Appellant, matching the general description of culprits who had recently robbed a cell phone store. The officer stopped the men and questioned them. During the conversation, the officer received information from other officers that supported his suspicions. Appellant was brought to the scene of the crime, where he was identified in a “show-up” procedure. Appellant was charged with robbery and firearms offenses. Appellant filed a motion to suppress. The district court denied the motion, determining that the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion and that, although the show-up procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the store clerk’s identification was reliable and therefore admissible. Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charged counts and then appealed the denial of his motions to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding that the stop effectuated by the officer was accompanied by reasonable suspicion; and (2) did not err in refusing to suppress the store clerk’s eyewitness identification testimony. View "United States v. Arthur" on Justia Law