Opinion
November 15, 1991
Appeal from the Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.
Present — Callahan, A.P.J., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 110.00, 220.09 Penal). On appeal, he argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
The record of the suppression hearing reveals that a State Trooper, having observed a traffic infraction (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [b]), properly followed and stopped defendant, and asked him for his driver's license and registration for the truck (see, People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393, 396; People v. Larkins, 116 A.D.2d 194, 196, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1054). When the vehicle was stopped, the officer noticed fireworks lying on the front seat. Defendant acknowledged to the Trooper that he knowingly and illegally possessed the fireworks. That statement negated any inference that defendant possessed a permit for such fireworks. Thus, the officer had reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of unlawfully possessing fireworks (Penal Law § 270.00 [b] [i]) and was entitled to effectuate a warrantless arrest (see, CPL 140.10 [a]; [2] [a]; see generally, People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673, 679-680; People v. Lumpkins, 157 A.D.2d 804, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 967).
A justifiable search of defendant's person incident to that arrest (see, People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891) disclosed additional fireworks. The officer then possessed sufficient probable cause to search the passenger compartment of defendant's vehicle as well as the closed containers therein (see, People v Blasich, supra, at 677-678; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 53-55). While conducting his search for fireworks, the Trooper discovered what reasonably appeared to be a controlled substance, which he was entitled to seize under the "plain view" doctrine (see, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465-471; People v Basilicato, 64 N.Y.2d 103, 115; People v. Spinelli, 35 N.Y.2d 77, 80-81). Therefore, the court properly denied the motion to suppress.