People v. Bahena, 170 N.E.3d 1014

March 9, 2013 shooting: victim shot while seated in a van outside a liquor store; surveillance video captured the shooter (back to camera, then turning toward camera). Victim described a heavy, tall Latino man.
Police made a still from the surveillance video, circulated an investigative bulletin; Sergeant Perez recognized Bahena from prior contacts and provided a photo; a second photo array (five photos) was shown to the victim eight months after the shooting, and the victim identified Bahena.
Bahena was arrested at his home the day after the photo ID based on an investigative alert; six hours after arrest the victim identified Bahena in a physical lineup; the next day Bahena gave a signed written confession.
Bahena moved to suppress the second photo array and the lineup as unduly suggestive and moved to quash his warrantless arrest (arguing the investigative alert alone was insufficient); both motions were denied, and after a bench trial he was convicted and sentenced to 31 years.
On appeal Bahena renewed both challenges; the appellate panel affirmed, upholding the trial court’s rulings on identification and on the constitutionality of the warrantless arrest under controlling precedent.

Issue	People’s Argument	Bahena’s Argument	Held
Pretrial photo array and physical lineup: were they unduly suggestive and thus violative of due process?	The identifications were not unduly suggestive and were independently reliable (victim viewed surveillance still, made consistent ID, and ID corroborated by video and Bahena’s statements).	The second photo array (five photos) and the lineup were suggestive (array size/format, background/color/cropping, clothing, defendant appearing in both displays, distinctive clothing/items in lineup).	Denied suppression: court found no undue suggestiveness and that any differences were minor; identification was reliable under the Biggers factors and corroborated by video and Bahena’s admission.
Warrantless arrest based on investigative alert: did the investigative alert alone make the arrest unlawful under the Illinois Constitution?	Probable cause existed and an investigative alert supported arrest; a warrant was not required where officers had probable cause.	The investigative alert alone (and lack of arrest/warrant) violated article I, § 6 of the Illinois Constitution and required a warrant.	Denied suppression: court declined to follow People v. Bass and instead followed Braswell, holding that an investigative alert supported by probable cause did not render a warrantless arrest unconstitutional; Bahena did not contest lack of probable cause.

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (sets five-factor test for assessing reliability of identifications)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (identification reliability standard under the Due Process Clause)
People v. McTush, 81 Ill. 2d 513 (1980) (state burden-shifting on reliability after showing suggestiveness)
People v. Gocmen, 2018 IL 122388 (2018) (definition of probable cause for arrests)
People v. Braswell, 2019 IL App (1st) 172810 (2019) (First Dist. panel rejecting Bass and permitting warrantless arrests based on investigative alerts where probable cause exists)
People v. Bass, 2019 IL App (1st) 160640 (2019) (contrasting division held investigative-alert-only arrests unconstitutional under Illinois Constitution)
People v. Johnson, 149 Ill. 2d 118 (1992) (presence in both photo array and lineup is not automatically fatal to identification)