Opinion
January 23, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police had probable cause to arrest him. After responding to the scene where a man was reported to have a gun, a police officer asked a security guard if he knew anything about the incident. The guard instructed the officer to follow him and shortly thereafter, he pointed to the defendant and his two companions stating, "That's them". When the police officer told the defendant and his friends that he wished to speak with them, they fled. While they had a constitutional right to run away from the officer (see, People v Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, cert denied 449 U.S. 1023), such flight indicates a guilty state of mind (see, People v Amarillo, 141 A.D.2d 551). Once the defendant was apprehended, he was identified by the complainant as the individual who possessed the firearm thereby providing the police with probable cause to effectuate his arrest (see, People v Gonzalez, 138 A.D.2d 623).
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the court erred by denying suppression of a showup identification of him. It was appropriate for the police to conduct a showup of the defendant as he was apprehended in close temporal and spacial proximity to the crime scene and could be viewed by the witness immediately so as not to unduly prolong his detention (see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523). Neither the fact that the defendant was in the backseat of a police car with two uniformed officers nor the fact that he was in handcuffs when the complainant identified him so tainted the identification as to warrant its suppression (see, People v Amarillo, 141 A.D.2d 551, supra; People v Veal, 106 A.D.2d 418).
Furthermore, we reject the defendant's contention that it was error to allow a police officer to testify that the complainant identified the defendant at the showup, where the complainant was unable to make an in-court identification of the defendant but testified that he did identify the gunman at the showup (see, CPL 60.25). Such testimony does not constitute impermissible bolstering (see, People v Lagana, 36 N.Y.2d 71, 74).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.