United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 15, 18]
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
August 28, 2019, the grand jury indicted Defendant on one
count of Felon in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition, 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On October 1,
2019, Defendant filed a motion to suppress identification
evidence. The Government opposed.
October 24, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the
motion. The Court denied Defendant's motion.
The Court stated that it would file an opinion discussing the
31, 2019, near 9:00 P.M., a citizen was in his car when an
individual approached his window. The individual asked for a
cigarette, and the citizen replied that he did not have one.
The two exchanged heated words, then the individual pulled
out a firearm and pointed it at the citizen. The citizen
drove away and called the police.
Police Department's (“APD's”) Officer
Siegferth and his partner responded to the call. Dispatch
described the suspect as a black male in his 30s wearing dark
clothing. While driving to the scene, Siegferth observed a
man matching this description walking down a nearby street.
Siegferth testified that there was adequate light to
accurately see the man and that no one else was walking in
arriving at the scene and not seeing a suspect, Siegferth
drove back to where he had seen the man walking down the
street. He found Defendant Kirkland less than two blocks away
from the location where the firearm had been brandished.
officers approached, the officers saw Defendant throw an
object into a bush. The officers retrieved a firearm from the
bush location and arrested Defendant. Officer Siegferth
described the Defendant as wearing a dark sweatshirt and dark
Akron Police Department Officer Sebastian and Sebastian's
partner drove to the citizen-complainant's home and asked
the complainant to come with them for a possible
identification. Sebastian instructed the complainant to
“tell us yes or no” during the identification.
Officer Sebastian drove the complainant to Kirkland's
arrest scene and stopped his car 30 or 40 feet away from
Police Officer Siegferth's police cruiser. The
complainant sat in the back of Sebastian's car. Police
Officer Siegferth's partner removed Defendant Kirkland
from the police cruiser. Siegferth and his partner stood next
to Defendant and Sebastian illuminated Defendant with his
car's lights. Defendant was handcuffed.
Officer Sebastian asked the complainant, “Is that
him?” The complainant confirmed the identification.
Sebastian asked him a second time and the complainant again
responded with a positive identification. In a later
interview, the complainant stated that he was 80% confident
that Defendant was the individual who threatened him with a
Officer Siegferth testified that the complainant identified
Defendant 20 minutes after Siegferth arrested him.
argues that the “show-up identification was
impermissibly suggestive, and violated his Fifth ...