Opinion
June 27, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was probable cause to arrest him based on the victim's statement that a crime had been committed and the highly detailed and accurate description of the defendant's physical appearance and clothing which the victim gave (see, People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248; People v Hairston, 117 A.D.2d 618, 620, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 884). Furthermore, the defendant was apprehended along the anticipated escape route where he was found within close spatial and temporal proximity to the scene of the crime (see, People v Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 645; People v Hill, 115 A.D.2d 620, 621). Accordingly, his arrest was not improper.
We further find that the showup identification held within moments after the arrest at the crime scene did not violate due process (People v Dennis, supra). Indeed, such procedures provide the potential for the prompt release of an exonerated suspect (People v Hernandez, 127 A.D.2d 790, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 648; People v Soto, 87 A.D.2d 618, 619; People v Veal, 106 A.D.2d 418, 419; People v Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, 23, affd 50 N.Y.2d 366). The procedures employed at the subsequent lineup were not unduly suggestive (People v Mattocks, 133 A.D.2d 89, 90, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 801; People v Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611, 612; People v Scott, 114 A.D.2d 915, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 765). In any event, the victim's lengthy viewing of the defendant under daylight conditions established an independent basis for the victim's in-court identification of the defendant (People v Magee, 122 A.D.2d 227; People v Rudan, 112 A.D.2d 255, 256).
We find that the defendant's confession was properly admitted into evidence as it was obtained after a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights of which he was repeatedly apprised (see, People v Padilla, 133 A.D.2d 353, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1009; People v Leonard, 59 A.D.2d 1, 12-13).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, People v Meadows, 64 N.Y.2d 956, cert denied 474 U.S. 820; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Thompson, J.P., Spatt, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.