Opinion
April 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that there was no probable cause for his arrest, which formed the basis for the charge under Indictment No. N12638/88, and that, therefore, the drugs seized during a search following his arrest should have been suppressed. We disagree. While sitting in an unmarked police vehicle in an area well known for drug trafficking, two undercover police officers observed a transaction between the defendant and two other men during which the defendant was given money in exchange for an unknown item. However, as the two men walked away from the defendant, the officers engaged them in conversation during which one of the purchasers, unaware that he was speaking to police officers, displayed two vials, which appeared to contain crack-cocaine, and indicated that the vials had been purchased from the defendant. The defendant was thereafter arrested, and during a subsequent search 24 vials which appeared to contain crack-cocaine were recovered.
Where, as here, probable cause is based, in part, on hearsay information, it must be demonstrated under the Aguilar-Spinelli test (see, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410) that (1) the informant is reliable, and (2) the informant had a sufficient basis for his knowledge (see, People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 402). In this case, the statements by the purchaser were based on his personal knowledge, thereby satisfying the basis of knowledge requirement (see, People v. Johnson, supra, at 403; People v. Burks, 134 A.D.2d 604, 605), and the purchaser's statements were sufficiently corroborated by the undercover officers' observations, thereby satisfying the reliability requirement (see, People v. Comforto, 62 N.Y.2d 725, 727; People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 489; People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 237; People v. Nelson, 125 A.D.2d 339). Thus, the People presented sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause to arrest the defendant.
We also reject the defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of the testimony of the undercover officers that when the officers asked, in effect, whether anyone had any drugs, the purchasers pointed to the defendant. In light of the overwhelming proof of guilt, we deem any error in the admission of the challenged testimony to be harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242; cf., People v Sallitto, 125 A.D.2d 345, 346).
Finally, we find that the sentence imposed under Indictment No. N12638/88 was not excessive. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.