Opinion
February 14, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
A Nassau County detective who was investigating a series of robberies learned of a robbery in Suffolk County that fit the same pattern. The license plate number of the vehicle used in the Suffolk County robbery was traced to the defendant's Cadillac. Upon discovering that the defendant was on parole for a robbery conviction, the detective obtained his photograph for a photographic array. One of the Nassau County robbery victims positively identified the defendant in the array, and another victim made a tentative identification of the defendant. Two days later, the police stopped the defendant while he was driving the Cadillac and arrested him.
We agree with the hearing court's determination that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the similarities in the various robberies, the connection between his vehicle and one of the robberies, and the identification of the defendant in the photographic array (see, People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 402; People v. Higgins, 178 A.D.2d 199; People v Rivera, 176 A.D.2d 446; People v. Montanez, 151 A.D.2d 616).
The defendant contends that a credit card receipt implicating him in a Suffolk County robbery was obtained through an impermissible inventory search of the Cadillac and that, as a consequence, the statements he made when confronted with that receipt should be suppressed. The record supports the hearing court's determination that an inventory search of his vehicle was not conducted; therefore, the concerns in People v. Galak ( 80 N.Y.2d 715) are not implicated. The evidence established that the receipt was found in plain view by the detective who drove the defendant's vehicle to the police station after his arrest (see, People v. Diaz, 81 N.Y.2d 106, 110).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.