Opinion
November 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in failing to suppress the physical evidence seized from the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The actions of the police officers in detaining the vehicle and ordering the occupants out was supported by their receipt of a radio transmission regarding a suspicious white van bearing the same license number and by their personal observation that the van's driver committed several dangerous traffic infractions and that the van was being operated recklessly at a high rate of speed (see, Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106; People v Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, cert denied 493 U.S. 966; People v McLaurin, 70 N.Y.2d 779). Furthermore, the retrieval by police of a handgun from under the defendant's seat was justified in view of the defendant's hesitation in exiting the van, his suspicious acts of reaching into his shirt and reaching under the passenger seat prior to alighting from the vehicle, and the officers' receipt of a second radio transmission regarding a robbery and possible stabbing committed by two males in a white van at a nearby location (see, People v Walker, 151 A.D.2d 794). Likewise, the recovery of a pocketbook and glove which were in plain view in the passenger compartment of the vehicle was not improper under the circumstances.
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that identification evidence should have been suppressed because of an unlawful showup procedure. The showup in this case took place in close temporal and physical proximity to the crime and was not conducted under impermissibly suggestive circumstances (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v White, 185 A.D.2d 472; People v Mitchell, 185 A.D.2d 249; People v Devon, 184 A.D.2d 322). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.