*2 appearance on match Mr. Best’s Before TERRY and question. the date and time GALLAGHER, Judges, twenty dollar bill and Since the Judge. Senior a direct re- were obtained as statement arrest, they should be sult of an GALLAGHER, Judge. Senior trial, appellant was convict- After a denied the motion The trial court (a) possessing distributing, of (and preju without cocaine, D.C.Code with intent to distribute dice). ruling, the court relied In so 33-541(a)(l) (1988). pre- He had filed § v. United Duddles suppress as evidence all trial motion “to (D.C.1979). Just before tangible evidence and statements obtained reconsider the appellant filed of his arrest.” as a result with denying his motion order motion, Appellant there contended as- support of this out a his motion serted: satisfy were sufficient to requirements The motion to princi- was based pally upon allegations A.2d at 64. He asserted that him for the lacking ap- arrest was a hearing on deprived his motion him of pellant “did not sell controlled sub- *3 process right “his due litigate a color stance to the undercover officer” and able question.” constitutional The court “[sjince was out- denied the motion on the basis that in side a the could not have grounding it an assertion was seen him in not at the scene and therefore must have an arrest” misidentified, been fundamentally this re (b) belief, and “on information and the de- lates ato claim of innocence of charges the scription alleged of the seller did not match to be tried. The court ruled that the claim appearance on the date and time in [his] litigated should during therefore be question.” by pretrial rather than motion. determining In whether to hold an stated, Briefly the trial evidence estab- evidentiary hearing sup on the motion to lished that an purchased undercover officer press, trial it court considered was appellant cocaine gave po- from him a v. by Duddles United bound our decision in pre-recorded twenty lice pay- dollar bill in supra, (later at ap 399 A.2d ment. relayed The officer a lookout for in Jackson v. proved United appellant with a description of him which (D.C.1979) (en banc)), hold stated he wearing baseball-style cap was ing “allegations merely that are con- it, jacket, with a star on black gray jeans clusional” in of a motion to shoes, and tennis and it was also stated he hearing do not suffice to obtain a on paid pre-recorded twenty was with a Rather, the motion. a defendant is re relayed bill. officer also the street which, quired allegations “to make factual appellant location hiding where established, if would warrant relief....” supply of cocaine behind a basement wall. Duddles v. United arresting
An team at 63. in soon located As the them,1 description given merely from the conclusory, and the motion are the trial purchasing by undercover officer then rode court did not err in the motion and confirmed the correct was be-
ing Appellant detained. was then arrested F.G., In re In recent in pre-recorded searched and the same (D.C.1990) (en banc), this pocket, dollar bill was found in his carefully its court restricted decision to “a supply and his hidden of cocaine was locat- suppress showup motion to identifica ed. Id. pointed tion.” at court out appeal, appellant argues present that his that an accused is when an arrest suppress presented the issues of is made or his environs are searched and correctly usually whether he “was identified as to the defendant access facts, showup the seller of a controlled substance when but where there is a identifi cation, nature, description appear did not match its the accused has little [his] it, question,” relating time in ance on date and access to the evidence Id. allegations. whether “the lacked order to make factual this, cause to believe he had committed a 726. For reasons such as the court suppress showup crime.” ruled that motions to hat, wearing Cowboy 3.Appellant (police) He Dallas match- in his motion also stated the ing given. pur- dollar bill used chase was obtained from him as a result of an deciding whether a on the motion arrest and should be granted, should have been we are bound the motion as filed in the trial necessarily and not appeal. as related in the brief on identification excep ample should be viewed as an for there was evidence to establish tion to the rules of v. for the ar- United that there was Culotta, supra, rest,” and Jackson 413 F.2d United States Cir.1969); (2d A.2d at and there 1345-46 showing These cases point going a factual would therefore be no support of the motion in order to secure an re- through on evidentiary hearing. merely duplicative This court therefore mand which would be decided that and fruitless. is, the defendant more, evidentiary entitled to an hearing. Since the motion in this case does *4 Judge, not involve a how concurring: ever, applies the Duddles rule here. I harbor some doubt whether the Dud- applied dles test can be on the facts here suppress was a mixture of assertions that G., holding in of our en banc In re F. indicated on the one hand that the (D.C.1990) (“a
had arrested the correct marked (“Duddles expressly premised its test on dollar bill retrieved availability to the defendant of evi- pant and, pocket”) from his on the other actions”). government’s dence about hand, conclusory statements to the con- However, agree majority I with the trary probable there was no event, clearly the evidence at trial es- drug was innocent of traffick- tablished that there was ing and “on information and belief” the the arrest and therefore to a re- given of him mand for an would be appearance. match his “fruitless.” simply conclusory
Since these were
assertions, they did not meet the factual
specificity required by our decision in Dud
dles v. United we are now able to con
clude after the trial hearing upon that “a
the motion ... would have been fruitless subsequent 4. The evidence obtained from the needed show cause to ar- was not rest, search, bill, e.g., independently established. which