the show-up was unduly suggestive. We agree with the trial court that the show-up was not “so imper-missibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification.” Maddox v. United States, 745 A.2d 284, 292 (D.C. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Show-up identification procedures following the commission of a crime typically involve some suggestivity, and “something more egregious than mere custodial status is required to establish” impermissible suggestivity. Singletary v. United States, 383 A.2d 1064, 1068 (D.C. 1978). At the time of the show-up in this case, Mr. Wade was in handcuffs between two police cars. Such circumstances do not rise to the level of impermissible suggestivity. See, e.g., Howard v. United States, 954 A.2d 415, 423 (D.C. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Diggs v. United States, 906 A.2d 290, 300
holding that showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive where defendant was handcuffed and placed under police spotlight holding that showup identification proce dure was not unduly suggestive where officer said to eyewitness we got two guys in the car similar to the ones you told us about holding that a showup identification was not impermissibly suggestive where it took place immediately after the unlawful conduct and was necessary to avoid arresting the wrong person holding showing of a single photo is unduly suggestive holding that a showup identification was valid even though the suspect was handcuffed