Opinion
November 23, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Sweeny, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In the evening of January 6, 1990, the White Plains police received an anonymous tip which, in substance, stated that the defendant was at a specified location in possession of a gun. The informant identified the defendant by name. Two police officers, both of whom personally knew the defendant, responded to the scene. They were accompanied by a police sergeant. They observed the defendant at the specified location, described by one of the officers as a "high drug activity area, high crime area". They stopped the defendant. One of the officers, acting to insure his own safety and the safety of the other officers, frisked the defendant. The officer felt a bulge in the defendant's jacket but was unable to ascertain whether or not the object was a gun. He removed the object, which was revealed to be a leather pouch. The officer felt the exterior of the pouch and noted that it contained small cylindrical objects. Based on his experience, the officer believed these objects to be crack cocaine vials. He opened the pouch and found that it contained 13 vials of crack cocaine.
The Supreme Court properly denied the suppression of the vials. Under the circumstances of this case, the police were justified in believing that the defendant was armed and a frisk for a weapon was permissible (see, People v Salaman, 71 N.Y.2d 869). Further, after detecting a bulge that could not be identified, and being unable to determine that the defendant was unarmed, the officer who conducted the frisk properly removed the pouch from the defendant's jacket (see, People v Taylor, 123 A.D.2d 651; see also, People v Pagan, 173 A.D.2d 744; People v Perry, 133 A.D.2d 380, affd 71 N.Y.2d 871; cf., People v Battaglia, 56 N.Y.2d 558; People v Brockington, 176 A.D.2d 743). Moreover, the subsequent search of the pouch was proper under the circumstances (see, People v Burns, 182 A.D.2d 633; see also, People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v Allen, 181 A.D.2d 684).
In view of this determination, we need not consider whether or not the defendant consented to the frisk (see, People v Zimmerman, 101 A.D.2d 294). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.