Since defendant's suppression motion was expressly limited to a Fourth Amendment claim, his argument that his identification should have been suppressed because of an allegedly suggestive lineup is unpreserved and waived, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The hearing record does not support defendant's claim of suggestiveness (see generally People v Chipp,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
