Opinion
December 7, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred when it declined to suppress the homicide victim's antique engagement ring, ruling that it would have been inevitably discovered in the course of normal police procedure notwithstanding a prior illegally obtained statement.
The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule requires the People to establish "a very high degree of probability that the evidence in question would have been obtained independently of the tainted source" (People v Payton, 45 N.Y.2d 300, 313, revd 445 U.S. 573, on remand 51 N.Y.2d 169; People v Fitzpatrick, 32 N.Y.2d 499, 506, cert denied 414 U.S. 1033, 1050; People v Stith, 69 N.Y.2d 313, 318; People v Knapp, 52 N.Y.2d 689, 697-698; People v Ruffin, 133 A.D.2d 425, 429; People v Buffardi, 92 A.D.2d 899, 901). "[T]he inevitable discovery exception is based on the perception that in certain circumstances the interest of society is better served by having relevant and material evidence admitted in criminal cases than by deterring police misconduct through the exclusion of evidence unlawfully acquired" (People v Stith, supra, at 318; see also, Nix v Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 442-443). The exception does not apply to "the very evidence obtained in the illegal search", i.e., primary evidence, but only to secondary evidence, i.e., "evidence obtained indirectly as a result of leads or information gained from the primary evidence" (People v Stith, supra, at 318).
We agree with the hearing court that the ring in question was admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that normal police procedure — including a well established system of checks on local establishments which bought and sold silver and gold items — would have inevitably led to the ring's discovery, notwithstanding the prior illegality (see, People v Fitzpatrick, supra, at 506).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.