Opinion
August 10, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the trial court's determination that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was based upon reasonable suspicion (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; see also, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181). A police officer testified that in the evening hours of October 7, 1990, she observed the defendant driving very slowly in a white van with California license plates, twice circling an area of approximately five blocks. In addition, the officer testified that a few days before, she had read a flyer that indicated that a number of burglaries had occurred in that same area in the evening hours and that a white van with out-of State license plates was suspected of being involved in those burglaries. These facts were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion justifying stopping the defendant and ordering him to exit the van (see, CPL 140.50; People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369; People v Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559; People v. Salvaty, 163 A.D.2d 494; People v. Byrd, 156 A.D.2d 374; People v. Bloise, 150 A.D.2d 382; People v Williams, 121 A.D.2d 488). Moreover, the gun and ammunition found in the defendant's van was discovered pursuant to an inventory of the contents of the van. The inventory search was conducted after the police officer learned that the defendant's registration had expired approximately two months before and thus determined that the defendant's van was to be impounded. Thus, the gun and ammunition were properly deemed admissible (see, People v Galak, 182 A.D.2d 702; People v. Brooks, 161 A.D.2d 655; People v Robinson, 36 A.D.2d 375). Harwood, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.