Opinion
June 7, 1991
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that the inventory search of his vehicle was pretextual and unlawful. Upon impounding a vehicle, the police may conduct an inventory search of it and of any containers found therein (see, People v Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386, 388-390; see also, People v Townsend, 152 A.D.2d 515, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 746; South Dakota v Opperman, 428 U.S. 364; cf., People v Lloyd, 167 A.D.2d 856). When such search is challenged, the People have the burden of showing that it was "conducted pursuant to standardized procedures" (People v Lloyd, supra, at 857; see, Florida v Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 109 L Ed 2d 1; Colorado v Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 374, n 6; Illinois v Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 643-644, 648; South Dakota v Opperman, supra, at 374-375). The People established at the suppression hearing that the challenged search was conducted consistently with the police department's standardized guidelines, which directed that, prior to towing, officers are to inspect all accessible areas of the vehicle and remove any loose articles of value. The suppression court properly determined that the search was within permissible limits.
Moreover, the record fully supports the determination of the suppression court that the police officers acted lawfully when they stopped and arrested defendant (cf., People v Howell, 49 N.Y.2d 778; People v Carvajales, 152 A.D.2d 675, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 768; People v Mikel, 152 A.D.2d 603).
We have examined the other contentions raised by defendant and find them to be without merit.