The suppression motion was properly denied. The court properly found that the showup identification three weeks after the undercover officer's final meeting with defendant in this ongoing investigation was confirmatory. There was no risk of misidentification since the trained and experienced officer had met with defendant for prolonged periods on three prior occasions and grew familiar with his appearance (see, People v Pipersburg,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
PEOPLE v. QUINONES
292 A.D.2d 239 (2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 574
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE QUINONES, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided March 19, 2002.
Decided March 19, 2002.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
