The People of the State of New York, v. William Lopez, Defendant. (2026)

Defendant moves to suppress his properly noticed identification as being unduly suggestive and to suppress any other confirmatory identification evidence, including police testimony that he owns or was driving a gray Mercedez Benz with New Jersey plates, as the fruit of an unreasonable seizure on the grounds that such observations were in violation of his constitutional rights under both the New York State and Federal Constitutions.

The Court conducted a Wade/Dunaway hearing on August 4, 2026.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The People allege that on or about December 21, 2025, at approximately 8:35 P.M., inside a building located at 245 E Gun Hill Road, Defendant struck the first complaining witness (the "First Complainant") with a closed fist on her left eye and then struck a second complaining witness (the "Second Complainant") in the face multiple times, causing that Second Complainant to roll down a flight of stairs, together with Defendant, as Defendant continued to strike the Second Complainant (Superseding Information at 1). As a result of this alleged conduct, Defendant is charged with Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00 [1]), a misdemeanor, and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26 [1]), a violation (id.).

Defendant was arrested after he was positively identified by the First Complainant following a show-up procedure. The basic facts relevant to Defendant's identification here were already summarized in the Court's earlier decision and order on motions (Goodwin, J.):

Four Officers were involved in the events leading to the arrest. Officer Latimer and Officer Maher questioned both complaining witnesses and canvased with the first, asking her to point out the man who assaulted her. Two other officers, Heredia and Lugo, approached the defendant while he was sitting in his car, asked him to step out of his car, conversed with him (leading to several potentially incriminating statements  ¹ ), frisked him, and detained him as Officers Latimer and Maher canvassed with the complaining witness. Officers Heredia and Lugo then placed the defendant under arrest after he was positively identified, which they learned about via a "positive" ID over the radio from Officers Latimer and Maher,

(June 18, 2026 Decision and Order at 1).

Police Officers Latimer and Heredia both testified at the hearing. The Court received into evidence both officers' body worn camera footage (the "BWC") from the night in question (Def. Ex. A [Officer Latimer's BWC], Def. Ex. B [Officer Heredia's BWC]).

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court finds as fact all events depicted in the BWC that was admitted into evidence. The Court also credits the testimony of both Officers Latimer and Heredia and makes the following specific findings of fact.

Officer Kevin Latimer has been an NYPD officer for approximately two and a half years and has been assigned to patrol in the 52nd Precinct for approximately the last two of those years (Aug 4, 2026 Tr. at 5:17-24). During that time, he has made approximately 35 arrests, including approximately 20 arrests involving assault (id. at 6:1-4). He has been involved in another 40 arrests involving assault (id. at 6:5-7).

Officer Shannon Heredia has been an NYPD officer for over four and a half years and is also currently assigned to the 52nd Precinct. During that time, Officer Heredia made approximately 35 arrests, including for assault (id. at 27:3-13).

On the night of December 21, 2025, Officer Latimer was assigned to patrol with his partner Officer Moore in their police vehicle. They received a radio run of an assault in progress at 245 E Gun Hill Road (id. at 6-7). When they arrived, they found two complainants, a man and a woman, inside a well-lit lobby, where the alleged incident occurred. The officers spoke to the two jointly for several minutes. Officer Latimer asked the First Complainant if she knew the name of the man that hit her, and she said no. However, she told officers that the man was her third floor "neighbor's daughter's boyfriend" and that she had a fight with that third floor neighbor earlier in the evening. The Second Complainant described the man that allegedly hit him as having "face tattoos" and "dark skin." The First Complainant stated the man drove off in a Mercedez Benz vehicle. She also described him as wearing a "brown leather coat."

On the night in question, Officer Heredia and his partner were serving as back up for Officer Latimer and his partner. While driving around and "backing them up," Officer Heredia "noticed a vehicle matching the exact description that had come over on the job, and [ ] brought that vehicle to a stop" (id. at 29). The description provided was a "gray Mercedez Benz with a license plate from New Jersey" (id. at 30:3-4).²

Back on scene, after speaking with both complainants, Officer Latimer "grabbed [the First Complainant] and put them in [the] patrol car [to do] a showup" (id. at 7:20-21; Def Ex. A). The Second Complainant was not put in the patrol car for this procedure because he "couldn't walk" (Tr. at 7:25).

Officer Latimer drove the First Complainant approximately two-and-a-half blocks to the location where Officer Heredia and his partner had Defendant's vehicle stopped (id. at 8). The location was "well-lit" with street lamps and bodega lights (id. at 24:10). Defendant was standing next to the vehicle, along with Officer Heredia and his partner. Defendant was wearing a dark, navy blue sweatsuit and asked if he could put on his jacket when he got out of the car: a bright red, shiny, puffy coat. He had a beard and no facial tattoos. The hood on his jacket was up.

As Defendant stood outside the vehicle talking to Officer Heredia and his partner, Officer Latimer drove by with the First Complaint, who identified Defendant: when the officers asked her, "is this him? Yes or no?" she responded yes, it was him (id. at 8:8-23).

Officer Latimer's partner then went over the radio to report the positive ID and Defendant was placed under arrest.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In a Wade/Dunaway hearing, the initial burden is on the People to show by credible evidence "the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any suggestiveness in a pretrial identification procedure" (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990]). If the People meet that burden, Defense bears the "ultimate burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive" (id., citing People v Berios, 28 NY2d 361 [1971]).

1. Police Had Probable Cause to Arrest Defendant

Police stopped Defendant in his car, a few blocks from where the incident occurred, because his car matched the exact description provided by the First Complaint: gray Mercedes with New Jersey plates. As noted above, Defendant was pulled over shortly after Police received the complaint.

Police are constitutionally permitted to conduct an investigative detention "where it is based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity" (People v Williams, 73 Ad3d 1097, 1098 [2d Dept 2010]). Reasonable suspicion requires that an officer "have that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand" (People v Woods, 98 NY2d 627, 628 [2002]).

Based on the information provided to police about the suspect having fled the scene in a car matching Defendant's vehicle, Officer Heredia and his partner had reasonable suspicion to stop and briefly detain Defendant for the showup identification procedure (People v Marcus, 282 AD2d 377 [1st Dept 2001] [detention for showup based on reasonable suspicion flowing from "totality of the information" available to police]). Inasmuch as Defendant's physical description differed from that given by the Second Complainant because Defendant had no face tattoos, this is an issue of proof for the finder of fact at trial, not an issue with the reasonableness of the police investigation and showup.³

Accordingly, the showup is not suppressible as the fruit of an unlawful stop and Defendant's motion to suppress the identification procedure and any evidence on this basis is denied. The testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing show that police had a reasonable suspicion that Defendant committed the assault based on the fact that his car matched the exact description provided by the First Complainant and was pulled over in close geographic and temporal proximity to the address where the incident allegedly occurred (see People v Diomande, 237 AD3d 646, 647 [1st Dept 2025]; People v Paige, 154 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2017]).

2. The Showup Was Reasonable Under the Circumstances

In a Wade hearing, the Court must decide whether the pretrial identification of a defendant violated their constitutional rights, and if so, what remedy may be appropriate (People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427, 434 [2006] [Smith, J., dissenting], citing United States v Wade, 388 US 218, 242 [1967]). Although showup identification procedures are generally disfavored (People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]), the Court of Appeals has "endorsed" them "following a defendant's arrest at or near the crime scene," and permitted them when exigent circumstances exist, such as, for example, when "the police need to know if they have the right person or should keep looking" (People v Howard, 22 NY3d 388, 402 [2013]). Similarly, showups have been "approved" when part of " 'an unbroken chain of events' or ongoing investigation" (id., citing People v Duuvan, 77 NY2d 541 [1991]).

The People bear the burden of showing "that the showup was reasonable under the circumstances" (People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]). In that regard, "[p]roof that the showup was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime will generally satisfy this element of the People's burden" (id.; People v Diomande, 237 AD3d 646, 647 [1st Dept 2025]; People v Paige, 154 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2017]). The People must also produce "some evidence relating to the showup itself, in order to demonstrate that the procedure was not unduly suggestive" (Ortiz, 90 NY2d at 537).

Here, the record supports the conclusion that the showup identification procedure was reasonable and not unduly suggestive because it took place a few blocks from where the alleged assault occurred, shortly after police arrived on the scene, and in the context of a continuous, ongoing investigation (see e.g., People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596 [2003]; People v Scott, 223 AD3d 626, [1st Dept 2024]). The showup was also not unduly suggestive simply because the Defendant was standing with police officers, uncuffed, next to his car (People v De Los Santos, 245 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2026] [show up not suggestive even where defendant was cuffed and surrounded by officers]; People v Gatling, 38 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2007]).

Defense counsel's argument that the showup was somehow impermissibly suggestive because he was standing next to his car that matched the exact description provided by the First Complainant is not supported by any case law. The car was there because Defendant was driving it before he was stopped, not because the Police put him next to a car matching the description of the car provided (cf. People v James, 128 AD3d 723 [2d Dept 2015] [suppressing showup where police held striped shirt in front of suspect]). The police were not required to move him to conduct the showup under the circumstances.

In summary, the Court finds that the People met their burden of demonstrating that the showup identification procedure here was reasonable and not unduly suggestive, thereby shifting the burden to Defense, who has not demonstrated otherwise. Accordingly, suppression is denied.

Dated: September 21, 2026

Hon. Anna Mikhaleva

FOOTNOTES

1.   The "potentially incriminating statements" only consist of Defendant stating that he knew about the fight between his "mother-in-law" and her neighbors.

2.   The more detailed description of the vehicle appears to have come from a 911 call made by the First Complainant.

3.   Same for defendant wearing a red puffy jacket and not a brown leather coat as reported by the First Complainant.

Anna Mikhaleva, J.