Opinion
March 30, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A police officer, upon an anonymous tip that the defendant had a gun, frisked him but found no weapon. Thereafter, another unidentified person told the officer that the defendant had placed the gun in a sidewalk planter on a public street, and the officer recovered the gun, unloaded it, and placed it back in the planter. Thereafter, the officer saw the defendant return, look around, and remove an object from the planter. The officer then attempted to place the defendant under arrest. The defendant fled and upon his apprehension, the same gun was found three feet away.
The gun, having been found in the planter and thereafter on the street near the defendant, was not "obtained by means of an unlawful search and seizure under circumstances precluding admissibility" (CPL 710.20). The officer had cause to arrest the defendant based on his own observations that made it probable that the object the defendant removed from the planter was a gun (Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-176, reh denied 338 U.S. 839; People v. Chapman, 103 A.D.2d 494, 496; see also, People v. Rao, 107 A.D.2d 720).
The defendant's other contention that it was error to limit his right to cross-examine a witness at the hearing is rejected. The areas the defendant sought inquiry into were not relevant to the issues of this hearing (see, People v. Blackwell, 128 Misc.2d 599). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.