Opinion
October 13, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger was stopped in connection with a traffic violation, and a police officer subsequently observed a crack vial in the vehicle's ashtray. Contrary to the defendant's contention, that the officer saw the crack vial with the aid of a flashlight does not render the officer's observation of the crack vial a "search" within the meaning of the Federal or State Constitutions (US Const, 4th, 14th Amends; N.Y. Const, art I, § 12; United States v Dunn, 480 U.S. 294; Texas v Brown, 460 U.S. 730; People v Williams, 137 A.D.2d 569). As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in United States v Dunn (supra, at 305, quoting Texas v Brown, supra, at 739-740), "it is `beyond dispute' that the action of a police officer in shining his flashlight to illuminate the interior of a car, without probable cause to search the car `[violated] no right secured * * * by the Fourth Amendment'". Once the crack vial had been detected, the police had the right to conduct a warrantless automobile search based on the existence of probable cause to believe that the automobile contained contraband (see, People v Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.