Opinion
October 15, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
We find that the hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the weapon found in his vehicle. The initial stop of the defendant's vehicle for a traffic violation was proper (see, People v. Allah, 131 A.D.2d 765). Furthermore, the police officer's act of observing the interior of the vehicle with the aid of a flashlight to reveal evidence that would have been in plain view but for the darkness was not an unreasonable intrusion (see, People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362 amended on other grounds 35 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Bute, 172 A.D.2d 550; People v. Wallace, 153 A.D.2d 59). Upon discovering the sawed-off barrel of a shotgun on the front seat, the police had probable cause to search the passenger compartment to uncover further evidence of contraband or of the commission of a crime (see, People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673; People v. Orlando, 56 N.Y.2d 441; People v. Hicks, 135 A.D.2d 651).
The defendant contends that the court erred in denying his request to preclude the testimony of three police officers as a sanction for the prosecution's loss of Rosario material. A narrative of the incident, which was prepared by one of the officers for the purpose of a request for recognition of excellent police duty, had been destroyed. It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine the appropriate sanction to be imposed upon the People for their failure to preserve Rosario material (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937). In the present case, the court's adverse inference charge regarding the missing narrative was the appropriate measure to rectify the harm done by the loss of the evidence (see, People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929; People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516). There was no evidence that the narrative was destroyed in bad faith, the defendant received other statements prepared by the police officers, and defense counsel cross-examined the officers regarding the destruction of the narrative. Precluding the officers from testifying would have been too drastic a measure as it would have eliminated all of the People's evidence and resulted in the dismissal of the indictment. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.