Wilma Walmart, Loss Prevention Employee, sees Tom Thief on security cameras take a pair of expensive Air Jordan tennis shoes from the shoe box, and then sees him yank off, the security tag from one of the shoes. Tom is then seen secreting the shoes into his backpack, as he quickly exits the store without getting caught. Ms. Walmart, in the camera room, immediately calls the police. She provides the police with Thief's physical description; the area that he is seen leaving the Walmart store; plus, she gives the police a description of the backpack that Thief is carrying that contains the shoes. Officer Charlie Cop is on duty in the Walmart area, when he receives the call out for the shoplifting incident. He sees a young man running from the Walmart parking area. Cop catches up to the young man just two streets from the Walmart. He sees the young man throw down the back pack. Cop gets out of his car and tackles the young man, detaining him. Ms. Walmart is brought by Officer Backup. When Ms. Walmart sees the young man, she saws that's him, I'm 100 percent sure. The young man is arrested. The backpack is then retrieved with the stolen Walmart Jordan shoes. Applying what we have learned in class or with the powerpoint slides, along with caselaw that we've discussed, is the show-up procedure used here, a legally permissible identification process? What facts should the judge consider in deciding whether to allow the show-up procedure to be heard by the factfinder, or whether it should be excluded as an illegal seizure? What applicable case(s) that we've discussed in class/powerpoint would address whether the evidence recovered from the backpack would or would not be admissible at trial?