Opinion
April 5, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in denying the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the vials of crack cocaine which were recovered from a paper bag that the defendant threw to the ground when he saw a police officer approaching. The officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant, as the defendant's physical appearance substantially matched the description of the suspect given by the undercover police officer, and the defendant was at the scene of the crime minutes after the crime occurred (see, People v Javier, 175 A.D.2d 182). Since the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant, it is immaterial that the seizure of the paper bag containing the vials of crack cocaine "`occurred immediately before, rather than simultaneously with, the formal arrest'" (People v McLeod, 161 A.D.2d 671, 672, quoting People v Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689, 691). The mere fact that the police may have failed to investigate another possible suspect does not require a contrary result (see, e.g., People v Corso, 135 A.D.2d 551, 554; People v Fabian, 126 A.D.2d 664). In any event, as the officer's initial approach toward the defendant was proper, the defendant's act of dropping the paper bag to the ground constituted an abandonment (see, People v Brown, 186 A.D.2d 142; People v Boone, 183 A.D.2d 721; People v Eldridge, 178 A.D.2d 609). Balletta, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.