arrived at the scene of the crime, (Tr. at 173), indicating a high degree of certainty in his identification. Finally, the close proximity in both time and location between the crime and the Show-up here helped ensure its reliability. The fact that the Show-up took place approximately four blocks away from the crime, and within thirty to forty-five minutes of the event, mitigated any potential prejudice that might have resulted from Farmian viewing Valtin in police custody. See, e.g., Johnson v. Gilmore, 940 F.2d 665, 1991 WL 155984, at *4 (7th Cir. Aug.15, 1991) (unpublished table decision) (show-up occurring twelve to eighteen minutes after crime is close enough in proximity to “significantly diminish[ ] the concern of misidentification due to fading memory”); Zelker, 455 F.2d at 716 (<HOLDING>); see also Willin v. Ajello, 496 F.Supp. 804,
holding that police had probable cause to arrest defendant who was seen in the company of drug suspects was seen meeting suspects while they engaged in a drug conspiracy and whose behavior was consistent with the inference he was part of the conspiracy holding two instances of violating  148 were two offenses because thirty minutes elapsed between the two incidents and in the intervening space of time the defendant had completely calmed down and ceased his criminal activity holding that a showup identification that occurred less than ninety minutes after the commission of the crime and within one mile of the crime scene was not unnecessarily suggestive because of its close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop suspect seen driving late at night only a short distance from the area in which a crime had been committed holding showup to be reasonable because when the two suspects were brought to be seen by the identifier only 30 minutes had elapsed since the identifier had reported the crime