In People v. Gee 286 AD2d 62 (4th Dept 2001), aff'd, 99 NY2d 158 (2002) a convenience store robbery of a clerk was captured on videotape. The store clerk initially viewed the videotape, then a series of five still photographs depicting the perpetrators of the robbery and later identified one of the perpetrators in a lineup. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress the identification, a decision which was affirmed by both the Fourth Department and the Court of Appeals. Addressing the question of whether the showing of the crime scene photographs in which only the Defendant's images appeared was unnecessarily suggestive, the Fourth Department first held that this viewing did not constitute an identification procedure at all because the photographs did not depict a suspect whose identity was known by the police: "Police did not show the clerk any photographs of an individual known to be defendant, or indeed of any known individual believed to have committed the robbery. Authorities did not seek the clerk's confirmation that a known suspect was the culprit. Instead, police showed the clerk five depictions of the robbery itself, in the form of a composite of stills taken from the store security video showing the crime as it occurred." (286 AD2d at 66.)