Summary
In People v. Gooden, 111 AD2d 871 (2nd Dept. 1985), upon which the prosecution places heavy reliance, the officer more precisely described the excessive speed of the vehicle by testifying that it was traveling at a speed at 50 to 60 miles per hour.
Summary of this case from People v. PradoOpinion
June 17, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonomo, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The police had a reasonable basis for stopping defendant's car, since they observed it traveling at an excessive rate of speed ( see, People v. Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413). Furthermore, when, upon approaching defendant to ask for his license and registration, Officer Gaynor observed defendant furtively attempting to secrete something in his crotch, the officer was presented with a reasonable suspicion of danger so as to warrant the minimal intrusion of a frisk of defendant ( People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267). The subsequent seizure of defendant's gun was, therefore, proper.
Additionally, defendant's failure to challenge the constitutionality of his prior felony conviction at sentencing constituted a waiver of any allegation of unconstitutionality since he has not shown good cause for his failure to do so (CPL 400.15 [b]).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, O'Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.