Opinion
October 19, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. We disagree, as all of the facts and circumstances of the instant case indicate that the search of the defendant's car and his person were proper. The police received an anonymous phone call that the defendant was dealing drugs at the "Back Door Lounge". The police went there, saw the defendant drive away, and, after checking through police channels, learned that the defendant's driver's license was suspended. Contrary to the defendant's argument, the justification for the defendant's detention was not the anonymous tip, but his driving without a valid license, in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 (1) (see, People v Johnson, 178 A.D.2d 549; People v Coggins, 175 A.D.2d 924).
One of the officers, while standing outside the vehicle, observed a folded paper "bindle", which he said he knew was commonly used in packaging cocaine, lying on the center console near the gear shift. After both the defendant and his passenger denied that the "bindle" was theirs, the officer opened it and observed what appeared to be cocaine. This factor, taken together with the officer's observation of a box of drug paraphernalia on the floor of the passenger seat, provided the officers with probable cause to search the vehicle and arrest the defendant (see, e.g., People v Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49; People v Mendez, 147 A.D.2d 712; People v Hawkins, 161 A.D.2d 802; People v Thomas, 168 A.D.2d 655). The ensuing search of the defendant's person was justified as incident to the arrest (see, Chimel v California, 395 U.S. 752; People v De Santis, 46 N.Y.2d 82, 87, cert denied 443 U.S. 912; People v Geddes, 134 A.D.2d 279, 280).
We agree with the defendant that the court, in its preliminary instructions, inappropriately and extensively discussed the nature and function of the Grand Jury, and stressed its impartiality (see, People v Moran, 84 A.D.2d 753). We disapprove of such instructions, but they do not merit reversal in this case. Given the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt, the improper instructions did not deprive him of a fair trial.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.