Opinion
May 31, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Seybert, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that there was no basis for the impoundment and inventory search of the vehicle he had been driving at the time of his arrest is without merit. There is nothing in the record to support the defendant's contention that this search was a pretextual investigative search rather than routine police procedure (see, People v. Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386). The defendant's additional argument that the inventory procedure utilized failed to conform to the standards set forth in People v. Galak ( 80 N.Y.2d 715) is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245).
Furthermore, based on our review of the testimony adduced at the combined Huntley-Mapp hearing, we conclude that the hearing court correctly denied suppression of the defendant's post-arrest statements to the police. According much weight to the determination of the suppression court, which had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), we find that the defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436), which he waived prior to making the statements. To be valid, a waiver need not be express. An understanding of the rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver are sufficient (see, North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369). The fact that the defendant was read the Miranda warnings, expressly indicated that he understood his rights, and after being advised of the subject matter of the police inquiry, initiated a conversation by asking questions about the incident, all indicates that a valid waiver had indeed occurred (see, People v. Bretts, 111 A.D.2d 864).
The defendant's contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.