What is the burden of establishing that the identification procedure employed by the police was suggestive or improper?

With regard to the Wade aspect of the within motion, it is well settled that a suggestive or otherwise improper identification procedure violates due process and is not admissible to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant (U.S. v. Wade, 388 US 218). At this hearing, the People bore the burden to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in the pre-trial identification procedure (see, People v. Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 [1990]). The burden then shifted to defendant to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the identification procedure employed was impermissibly suggestive and conducive to an irreparably mistaken identification (Id.). The People met their burden. Defendant did not.