Opinion
June 20, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police properly approached the double-parked car in which the defendant was a passenger in order to ascertain why the driver had not moved it despite repeated police requests to do so. This minimal intrusion of approaching to request information was entirely proper (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223; cf., People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470). Moreover, since it was shortly after midnight, the police officer's shining of her flashlight into the vehicle, while she remained outside, to illuminate what was otherwise in plain view, did not amount to an unreasonable intrusion (see, People v. Smith, 157 A.D.2d 870, 871; People v. Perez, 135 A.D.2d 582; People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, rearg granted 35 N.Y.2d 708). Therefore, the hearing court properly denied suppression of a gun observed in plain view and the other contraband subsequently recovered.
We additionally find without merit the defendant's claim that he was denied due process when the hearing court denied his request to call as a witness one of the two officers who approached the double-parked car. The record shows that the officer who did testify gave a complete account of the events leading up to the defendant's arrest and was extensively cross-examined by both the defendant and his codefendant. The hearing record raised no substantial issues as to the constitutionality of the police actions, the People's evidence was not notably incomplete, and the defendant did not otherwise establish a need for the second officer's testimony. Under these circumstances, the hearing court properly denied the defendant's application (cf., People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; People v. Ayala, 202 A.D.2d 262). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.