Opinion
June 16, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant, although only a passenger, has standing to challenge the legality of the stop of the vehicle in which he was riding and the seizure of any evidence resulting therefrom (see, People v. Smith, 106 A.D.2d 525) as well as the search of his person (see, People v. Barshai, 100 A.D.2d 253, 256, cert denied 469 U.S. 885). The radio transmission upon which the officers acted initially contained the information that three male youths were stripping a white Oldsmobile in the vicinity of their patrol and that a U-Haul truck bearing Massachusetts license plate No. A23128 was involved. Since the basis of this communication was never established at the suppression hearing and the information was not then verified by the officers' direct observation of criminal activity, the transmission, by itself, would not have been sufficient to sustain the defendant's arrest (see, People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231; People v. Havelka, 45 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210). However, even though the transmission was unsubstantiated hearsay, the fact that the defendant and his companions matched the broadcast description gave rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the limited intrusion involved in an automobile stop (see, People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369). Having stopped the vehicle lawfully, the observation of a knife next to the driver's seat supported the frisking of the defendant as a precautionary measure (see, People v. Landy, supra; People v Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267; People v. Pleban, 108 A.D.2d 880; People v. Livigni, 88 A.D.2d 386, affd 58 N.Y.2d 894) and the recovery of ratchet wrenches and sockets, tools commonly used for stripping automobiles, in that search, corroborated the radio broadcast sufficiently that probable cause was established (see, People v Elwell, supra). The arrest of the defendant and the search of the vehicle were therefore justified (see, People v. Jackson, 111 A.D.2d 412) and suppression of the fruits of that search and the defendant's subsequent statements were properly denied. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.