Opinion
May 18, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Doolittle, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and, therefore, that a sum of currency which was recovered from him and a statement which he made to the police should have been suppressed as the fruits of an unlawful arrest. We disagree.
Following his arrest for the sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer, the informant made a statement against his penal interest, implicating not only the defendant but himself in the sale of drugs (see, People v. Riggins, 161 A.D.2d 813). While it is true that the informant was caught "red-handed" selling cocaine to the undercover officer and could be viewed as having little to lose by falsely accusing the defendant of being his supplier, it can also be inferred that an individual in the informant's position would not lightly mislead the police and thereby exacerbate his predicament (People v. Comforto, 62 N.Y.2d 725). The reliability of the informant's information was further established by a telephone conversation which he made at the instruction of the police in which a speaker, who identified himself as David, and whom the informant identified as the defendant, agreed to enter into a drug transaction with the informant (see, People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 404; People v Comforto, supra, at 727).
There is also no merit to the defendant's contention that the People failed to establish at trial that the defendant could read and understand the English language and, therefore, that the waiver of his rights was involuntary. Apart from the fact that the record clearly suggests that the defendant could read and understand English, an illiterate defendant may validly waive his rights so long as it is established that he understands the immediate meaning of the warnings (see, People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285). In this case, the record clearly supports such a finding.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.