Opinion
March 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On May 15, 1988, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Police Officer Timothy Courtney observed the defendant sitting in a car parked near the Larchmont train station. He observed steam coming from the radiator and approached the vehicle to see if the defendant needed assistance. Courtney observed that the defendant's eyes were glassy and that his speech was slow. On the basis of these observations, Officer Courtney asked the defendant for his license and registration. The defendant was unable to produce the registration. Courtney ascertained that the car had been stolen, and placed the defendant under arrest. A search of the vehicle uncovered a hypodermic needle, syringe, bottle caps and a crack vial. The defendant raises on appeal the hearing court's denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the evidence that was seized from the car.
The defendant did not sustain his burden of showing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the stolen vehicle and therefore he lacks standing to challenge the validity of the search (see, People v Vargas, 140 A.D.2d 472, 473; see also, People v Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160). In any event, Officer Courtney was clearly justified in approaching the car to see if the defendant needed assistance, and in subsequently placing the defendant under arrest after learning that the car had been stolen (see, People v Heston, 152 A.D.2d 999; People v Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). As there was probable cause to arrest the defendant, the search of the car was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement (see, People v Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.