Opinion
April 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest her. Probable cause requires the existence of facts and circumstances which, when viewed together, would lead a reasonable person possessing the same expertise as the arresting officer to conclude that an offense has been or is being committed and that the person to be arrested is the perpetrator of the crime (see, People v Oden, 36 N.Y.2d 382, 384; People v Fernandez, 185 A.D.2d 944, 945; People v Javier, 175 A.D.2d 182). "When an arresting officer has acted on the basis of a radio bulletin from a fellow officer who has personal knowledge of the facts transmitted, the reliability of the information conveyed may be presumed" (People v Brown, 184 A.D.2d 647). In this case, the arresting officer received a radio transmission from an undercover officer who had just purchased narcotics from the defendant on the corner of Prince Street and Roosevelt Avenue in Queens. The transmission described the defendant as a "female black, wearing a white shirt with blue stripes, blue jeans and white shoes" and her alleged supplier as "a female black wearing a red skirt [a] yellow shirt * * * red shoes * * * and earrings". The arresting officer testified that he and the other members of the backup team approached the corner of Prince Street and Roosevelt Avenue within minutes of the radio transmission and observed that the two women matched the descriptions they had just received. Significantly, no other people were standing on the corner. Under these circumstances, there was a sufficient basis for the hearing court to conclude that the defendant's arrest was based on probable cause (see, People v Fernandez, 185 A.D.2d 944, supra; People v Javier, 175 A.D.2d 182, supra; People v Rivera, 166 A.D.2d 678, 679).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.