Opinion
February 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the police lacked authority to stop and detain him forcibly, and that the fruits of such unlawful detention should have been suppressed. The record establishes that the police spotted defendant, who fit the general description of the suspect, approximately one block away from the scene of the crime within minutes after the robbery occurred; that they observed a "bulge" in defendant's waistband that appeared to be the butt of a gun; and that they observed defendant acting suspiciously while he was seated in the backseat of a cab as it drove away. Given those facts, it was proper for the suppression court to find that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the taxicab in which defendant was a passenger (see, People v. Marley, 201 A.D.2d 925, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 969; People v. Brown, 190 A.D.2d 1003, 1004, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 968). The actions of the police in drawing their guns did not transform the lawful stop into an arrest (see, People v. Brown, supra; People v. Clark, 172 A.D.2d 679, 680; People v. Davis, 161 A.D.2d 602, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 855). Inasmuch as the police had reason to believe that defendant was armed, they were justified in taking such precautionary measures as were necessary for their own safety (see, People v. Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, 21, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018). Once the police stopped the cab and observed a money wrapper and gun on the floor of the backseat, their reasonable suspicion ripened into probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444). Therefore, Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress.
There is no merit to defendant's contention that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct in failing to alert the defense that a prosecution witness gave false testimony. Although the witness's testimony was inaccurate in one minor respect, the inaccuracy appears to be the result of a mistake rather than deliberate false testimony. Moreover, defendant had a copy of the transcript of the disputed radio transmission prior to the hearing and was free to cross-examine the witness about the discrepancy.
Considering defendant's prior criminal history, we conclude that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum permissible terms.