six months after the robbery, each victim again made a positive in-court identification of defendant. Defendant rests his case on the flimsy base of alleged in-court identification taint by reason of the police station mirror-window viewing procedures. But the test is not whether the out-of-court identification is overly suggestive. Rather, the focus is on whether the in-court identification is reliable based on recollections independent of the pretrial identification as assessed under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Littleton, 649 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Higgins, 592 S.W.2d 151, 160 (Mo. banc 1979). And, as in Littleton, no determination is made here as to whether the show up procedures were improper. See State v. Edwards, 650 S.W.2d 655 (Mo.App.1983) (<HOLDING>). The factual circumstances of this case in
holding that police seizure of weapon in plain view even though appellant was handcuffed and under the control of the officers was lawful because there were other occupants in the house who were not handcuffed and who would have had access to the weapon holding that if a police officer inflicted no constitutional injury on a suspect it is inconceivable that the police commissioners could be liable to the suspect holding that statement taken at witness home by police nine days after the incident and based on a story made up and that everyone in the group had agreed to repeat if the police ever came questioning was not given under circumstances indicating trustworthiness holding that there was no arrest when suspect was moved from his own truck to a police car holding that a show up is not necessarily blemished by the fact that the victim was taken to a show up with the suspect handcuffed and near a police car with police officers present