Opinion
April 8, 1985
Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant's claim that the stop of his automobile and the search of the interior were violative of his constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures is without merit. Quite aside from his failure at the suppression hearing to establish the requisite standing ( see, People v. Cofresi, 60 N.Y.2d 728, 730), the actions of the police were well justified by settled decisional law. The radio transmission, alerting the officers that a car fitting the description of the defendant's vehicle had been involved in a burglary, constituted a sufficient predicate for the stop ( People v. Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 404; People v Rosario, 94 A.D.2d 329; People v. Finlayson, 76 A.D.2d 670, lv denied 51 N.Y.2d 1011, cert denied 450 U.S. 931).
Because the radio transmission contained specific and articulable facts which permitted the inference that the suspects were armed, the officers were justified in approaching with their weapons drawn, directing the occupants to exit, and conducting a frisk ( see, People v. Livigni, 58 N.Y.2d 894, affg 88 A.D.2d 386 for the reasons stated in the opn of Justice Mangano at App. Div.; People v. Brooks, 88 A.D.2d 451). Nor was it improper for the officer to reach under the front seat of the vehicle after one of the passengers was observed bending over and attempting to conceal an object ( Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032). Evidence thereafter taken from defendant's person and the interior of the car was validly seized as a search incident to arrest based on probable cause ( People v. Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170, cert denied 465 U.S. 1028; People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49).
Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and have been found to be without merit ( see, People v. Howard, 60 N.Y.2d 999; People v. Kepple, 98 A.D.2d 783). Titone, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.