Opinion
November 14, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that a New York State Police Trooper acted illegally in requiring him to exit the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The hearing evidence demonstrates that the trooper, working alone, had lawfully stopped the subject automobile for violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see, People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; People v Pincus, 184 A.D.2d 666; People v. Foster, 173 A.D.2d 841) and was engaged in placing the operator of the vehicle under arrest and conducting a search of his person at the rear of the automobile. Hence, the trooper's direction that the defendant exit the vehicle was a lawful and appropriate safety precaution (see, People v. Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, cert denied 493 U.S. 966; People v. Sprinkler, 198 A.D.2d 313; People v. Rodriguez, 167 A.D.2d 122; People v. Babarcich, 166 A.D.2d 655). Moreover, the defendant's act of discarding a cut plastic straw containing what appeared to be narcotics residue provided ample probable cause for his arrest on a drug possession charge.
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the warrantless search of his person was unlawful. During a pat-down, the trooper discovered a suspicious bulge in the crotch area of the defendant's pants, and a substantial quantity of narcotics was subsequently seized from the defendant's person pursuant to a search incident to his lawful arrest (see, People v. Perel, 34 N.Y.2d 462; People v. Perez, 135 A.D.2d 582; People v Castro, 130 A.D.2d 501). The mere fact that the defendant was transported to the State Police barracks prior to the search, and that the search involved the partial removal of his pants, did not render the police conduct constitutionally infirm (see generally, People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454, 458; People v. De Santis, 46 N.Y.2d 82, 88, cert denied 443 U.S. 912). Accordingly, the hearing evidence supported the County Court's denial of suppression, and we discern no basis for disturbing that determination (see, e.g., People v. Dent, 149 A.D.2d 725). Balletta, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.