“The fact that defendant may have been the only person in the photographic lineup wearing white sneakers does not render the lineup unduly prejudicial – even though the victims’ description of the perpetrator included white sneakers – as the clothing at issue is not unusual and is an extremely common item of clothing.” People v. Campbell (AD1 2017).
And if that’s not enough to show the lineup wasn’t suggestive, the definitive proof is that “two of the four victims were not able to identify defendant.” Apparently a lineup isn’t suggestive unless the suspect is so conspicuous that it’s impossible not to pick him out.
Fortunately, we don’t have to worry that “defendant” (why the article-deprivation?) was misidentified. He was “near the crime scene” (i.e., in the neighborhood) when shots were fired “and matched the general description of the suspect” (i.e., male black).
Did that give the cops probable cause to arrest, or reasonable suspicion that he’d committed a crime, or even “a founded suspicion that crime is afoot”?
Doesn’t matter, said the court, because when they ordered him “to stop and put his hands up in the air,” that was a mere “approach to request information.”
Moral: There’s no such thing as an unreasonable search and seizure if you’re guilty.
Approach to request information
“We’re taking a survey. Are you guilty?”
LikeLike
I think your cartoon is too subtle. You need to erase the man and draw a dog underneath the umbrella or perhaps keep the man and write “law” next to the hotdog on the side of the cart.
LikeLike