Bennett v. United States, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 507

Bennett was detained after a show-up identification process tied to a robbery; cocaine was later found in his pocket during a stationhouse search.
Police broadcast two lookouts: first for five black males; second described one with dreadlocks and red hat, another in a blue shirt; Bennett did not wear a blue shirt.
Officers separated Bennett from a similarly situated suspect, Johnson, and conducted questioning without clear suspicion Bennett was involved in the robbery.
Victim later identified Johnson at a show-up; Bennett was identified at a separate show-up and arrested.
Trial court denied suppression of the cocaine, relying on Trice-style rationale that detention could be justified; appeal reverses.
Appeals court held the detention violated the Fourth Amendment, as there was no particularized reasonable articulable suspicion or exigent circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Bennett seized without reasonable articulable suspicion?	Bennett argues the stop lacked particularized suspicion.	State argues proximity to Johnson and the lookout justified detention under Trice/exigent circumstances.	No; detention was unconstitutional.
Did the show-up identification and subsequent arrest stem from an illegal seizure?	Illegality of seizure taints evidence, including cocaine.	Detention was lawful under emergency/witness theories.	Cocaine evidence suppressed; unlawful seizure invalidates subsequent steps.
Do Trice or witness-exigency exceptions justify the detention here?	Trice/Witness exceptions permit detentions to secure safety or eyewitness accounts.	The facts fit exigent circumstances or safety concerns under Trice.	Neither exception applies; detention unjustified.
Is there support for a Terry stop based on reasonable articulable suspicion?	There was a basis to stop Bennett as part of a crime investigation.	No meaningful similarities to the lookout; proximity alone is insufficient.	No, not supported by reasonable articulable suspicion.

Trice v. United States, 849 A.2d 1002 (D.C.2004) (narrow exceptions allow detaining a companion for safety or eyewitness purposes)
Hawkins v. United States, 668 A.2d 1221 (D.C.1995) (witness-detention rationale limited; exigent circumstances required)
Williamson v. United States, 607 A.2d 471 (D.C.1992) (witness exception for questioning witnesses at scene)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (stop-and-frisk framework with reasonable suspicion)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (limits of detention in the context of consensual encounters)