Opinion
July 11, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's present contention, we find that the County Court did not err in denying the branches of his motion which were to suppress physical evidence and inculpatory statements. The record demonstrates that the arresting detective had ample probable cause to place the defendant's companion under arrest for armed robbery, that the detective had a prior familiarity with the defendant from a previous robbery investigation, and that he also was aware of a tip which the police had received indicating that the defendant's companion and another male intended to commit a robbery at a nearby location on that date. Inasmuch as the detective's belief that the defendant might be armed was reasonable and he testified that he was concerned for his own safety and sought to effect the arrest of the defendant's companion in a crowded restaurant without incident, we find that the minimally-intrusive conduct of frisking the defendant was reasonable and lawful under the totality of the circumstances (see, People v. Nelson, 179 A.D.2d 784; People v. Burgos, 175 A.D.2d 211; People v. Jenkins, 87 A.D.2d 526; see generally, People v. Salaman, 71 N.Y.2d 869; People v Harry, 187 A.D.2d 669; People v. Davis, 166 A.D.2d 604).
Furthermore, we agree with the People's contention that, even if the initial police conduct in this case had been unlawful, the defendant's subsequent statements and the sneakers taken from him would not have been subject to suppression. After the police showed the defendant a bank surveillance photograph depicting the defendant in the bank during the course of the robbery, the defendant made inculpatory statements. Thus, the hearing record demonstrates that any purported taint had dissipated because independent probable cause for the arrest existed. Further, several hours had passed, and Miranda warnings had been administered before the defendant was questioned (see, People v Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982; People v. Wilson, 57 N.Y.2d 786; People v Jackson, 178 A.D.2d 438; People v. Paden, 158 A.D.2d 554; People v Jones, 151 A.D.2d 695; People v. Sanders, 122 A.D.2d 86).
The contentions set forth in the defendant's pro se brief are not properly before this Court or are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.