police van, started pointing at Shavers and White and said “that’s the guys that just left out of there.” JA 556. Anderson testified that he pointed at the suspects to identify them and he could hear the other witnesses discussing and identifying the suspects. Id. at 555. The Government proffered no reason why the appellants and witnesses were not taken to the police station for a less suggestive line-up or photo array, or at least down the street for a less suggestive show-up identification. We acknowledge that some exigency existed here because, due to witness reports that the perpetrators were carrying firearms, it was vital to know immediately whether the correct people had been apprehended. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384-85, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968) (<HOLDING>). It was also important to conduct the
holding that a showup identification was valid even though the suspect was handcuffed 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 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 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 showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive where defendant was handcuffed and placed under police spotlight