Opinion
April 24, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Mazzei, J.).
Ordered that the appeals from the judgments under indictments Nos. 1153/84 and 1174/84 are dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment under indictment No. 2004/84 is affirmed.
The defendant was apprehended at 3:30 A.M. on September 4, 1984 while riding a bicycle along a deserted suburban street in Suffolk County, carrying several fishing poles, an electric chain saw and a leaf blower. The officers stopping him had received a report of a "possible burglary", involving a suspect who had left the scene on a bicycle.
On appeal, the defendant contends that in view of the fact that the police had probable cause to arrest him when they first stopped him on the bicycle, their preliminary questioning of him without first informing him of his Miranda rights was improper, requiring suppression of his statements. We disagree.
When the officers stopped the defendant, they lacked "information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense [had] been or [was] being committed" (People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423). Having heard of a "possible burglary", and lacking any information as to what might have been stolen, the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant and to make a preliminary, noncustodial inquiry (People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851). Some 10 minutes later, when the officers received information by radio that the items which the defendant was carrying had been stolen from the premises of a local homeowner, their reasonable suspicion ripened into probable cause, and the defendant was duly arrested and advised of his Miranda rights. The statements made by the defendant before he was taken into custody were, therefore, properly found admissible.
The defendant also complains that certain aspects of the court's charge to the jury were improper. We note that none of these objections is preserved for appellate review, since no objection or exception was raised at trial, nor did the defendant request any different or further instructions (CPL 470.05). Indeed, the defendant expressly declared himself "satisfied" with the court's charge (cf., United States v. Montiell, 526 F.2d 1008). In any event, we note that the charge, read in its entirety, conveyed to the jury the correct rules to be applied in arriving at its decision (People v. Rascio, 136 A.D.2d 575, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 973). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.