Opinion
September 1, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert C. Hinkson, J.).
The hearing court properly concluded that the People established probable cause to arrest defendant. The knowledge of a police officer who transmits a report to a fellow officer is imputed to the fellow officer who, when acting on that knowledge, presumptively possesses the requisite probable cause to make an arrest (People v. Matienzo, 184 A.D.2d 296, 296-297, affd on other grounds 81 N.Y.2d 778). At a suppression hearing, the prosecution must demonstrate that the sending officer himself possessed the requisite probable cause to act. That burden may be met without calling the sending officer to testify where "[t]he evidence submitted to the court by the arresting officer shows that he relied on information from another officer on the narcotics team who had personally witnessed the defendant commit the crime just prior to the radio transmission" (People v Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 51-52, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; see also, People v. Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342).
Here, the arresting officer's testimony established that he relied on information provided by the observation officer, a fellow Street Narcotics Enforcement Unit officer, who indicated that he had personally witnessed the drug sale. Although the hearing testimony does not specify the exact viewing location, it is not disputed that the observation officer had a binocular-range view overlooking Aqueduct Park. He transmitted a description of a buyer who had just "purchased drugs" in the park; based on the information received by radio, the arresting officer apprehended the buyer. Ten minutes later, the observation officer radioed that the seller "who had just been involved in [the] drug sale" was wearing a blue shirt, blue shorts and white sneakers, and was exiting the park; based on this information, the arresting officer followed defendant and apprehended him. Probable cause was established by the arresting officer's testimony that he acted in response to information supplied by his fellow narcotics officer and that he immediately observed defendant, who matched the description exactly, exiting the park (People v. Rose, 202 A.D.2d 189, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 876).
As to the retroactivity of the rule announced in People v Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 386), this question has been decided by the Court of Appeals in People v. Sprowal ( 84 N.Y.2d 113, revg 188 A.D.2d 251), which holds that Sloan is to be given prospective effect only (see also, People v. Hannigan, 193 A.D.2d 8 [Mangano, P.J.], lv granted 82 N.Y.2d 896).
Defendant's other contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.