United States v. Lance House, 823 F.3d 482

On July 26, 2013, witnesses saw a man pointing a handgun near a school; callers described a man in a red shirt, black hat, and an afro worn in a ponytail. Police located Lance House shortly thereafter; he ran, was captured, and placed in a patrol car handcuffed.
Witness Hruska observed the events from a nearby vehicle, watched the chase, and shortly after identified House at a show-up (while he was handcuffed in the patrol car).
ATF Agent Warkenthien later prepared a six-person photographic lineup using booking photos; Hruska immediately selected House’s photo. Hruska and another witness (Engelbrecht) also made in-court identifications at trial.
House moved to suppress the photographic-lineup identification as impermissibly suggestive; the magistrate and district court denied the motion. House was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 78 months.
On appeal House argued (1) the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive because he was the only person with a ponytail, and (2) the show-up identification was suggestive and tainted subsequent identifications. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive	House: his photo was the only one showing a ponytail, making the array unduly suggestive	Govt: photos were similar in lighting, clothing, complexion; hair-length variation alone is not unduly suggestive	Denied suppression; lineup not impermissibly suggestive and district findings not clearly erroneous
Whether the on-scene show-up impermissibly suggested ID and tainted later IDs (plain-error review)	House: officers told Hruska “this is the person” while House was handcuffed, creating a high risk of misidentification and tainting later IDs	Govt: on-the-scene show-ups (including handcuffed suspects) are permissible; Hruska had good opportunity to view suspect, prompt ID, and matched prior description	No plain error; show-up reliable under Biggers factors, so no suppression of show-up, photo, or in-court IDs

United States v. Burston, 806 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Zamora-Lopez, 685 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirmance standard for suppression rulings)
Schawitsch v. Burt, 491 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2007) (two-step inquiry for photographic lineups applying Manson/Biggers)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (due-process test for reliability of eyewitness ID)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 F.3d 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors to assess reliability of identification)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (pretrial identification considerations)
United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved objections)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (elements of plain-error review)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (prejudice requirement under Olano)
United States v. King, 148 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 1998) (on-the-scene IDs where suspect is handcuffed are not per se suggestive)
United States v. Jones, 535 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2008) (Biggers reliability factors listed)
United States v. Williams, 340 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2003) (Biggers factors and reliability analysis)
United States v. Martinez, 462 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2006) (pretrial confrontation must be both suggestive and unreliable to violate due process)
United States v. Hadley, 671 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir. 1982) (if show-up passes constitutional muster, court need not decide whether subsequent IDs were tainted)