Opinion
January 11, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Neither dismissal of the indictment nor suppression of the identification testimony is required because the police identified the defendant through the use of fingerprints that should have been sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50. As this court has recently stated, CPL 160.50 "was part of a legislative package whose purpose was to remove the stigma of alleged criminal activity from an accused who was acquitted by a court or against whom the charges were dismissed and to restore the former defendant to the status he occupied before the arrest and prosecution (see, L 1976, ch 877; People v Gallina, 110 A.D.2d 847, 848; People v Anderson, 97 Misc.2d 408, 412)" (People v Dozier, 131 A.D.2d 587, 588). It was not designed to immunize a defendant from the operations of a law enforcement official's investigatory use of fingerprints (see, People v Dozier, supra; People v London, 124 A.D.2d 254, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1001).
The court's charge on intoxication was not confusing and conveyed the proper burden of proof to the jury. The court was not required to instruct the jury that the People bore the burden of disproving intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.
The interest of justice does not warrant a reduction of the sentence imposed upon the defendant. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.