the police to resume the search for the fleeing culprit while the trail is still fresh.’” United States ex rel. Cummings v. Zelker, 455 F.2d 714, 716 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 927, 92 S.Ct. 1800, 32 L.Ed.2d 128 (1972) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also James v. Senkowski, 97-CV-3327, 1998 WL 217903, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 1998) (Cote, J.). Accordingly, “it is now settled law that prompt on-the-scene confrontation is consistent with good police work and does not offend [constitutional] principles[.]” Zelker, 455 F.2d at 716 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Showup identification procedures that occurred within temporal and geographic proximity to the crime have generally not been found to be unduly suggestive.” Warren, 2008 WL 4960454, at *23 (<HOLDING>); see also Bautista, 23 F.3d at 730 (affirming
holding that if a crime is broadly defined the court can look beyond the elements of the crime holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins holding that a showup identification procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive because a serious felony had been committed the perpetrators were still at large and it was essential for the fbi agents swiftly to determine whether they were on the right track  holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder 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