Opinion
June 1, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
That branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him was properly denied, since the actions of the police were at all times reasonably related in scope and intensity to the information available to them as their encounter with the defendant unfolded (see, People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v Finlayson, 76 A.D.2d 670, lv denied 51 N.Y.2d 1011, cert denied 450 U.S. 931). The observations made and information obtained at the crime scene by the investigating officers justified pursuing a limited inquiry of the defendant, and given the noncustodial, noncoercive circumstances of the encounter, the defendant's consent to the minimally intrusive requests of the officers must be considered, in this case, to have been freely given (see, People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 252-253). As a result of the encounter, the police obtained probable cause to arrest the defendant, and the statements subsequently made by him during questioning at the police station were therefore not taken in violation of the principles enunciated in Dunaway v New York ( 442 U.S. 200).
In view of the brutal nature of the murder committed by the defendant, we do not consider the imposition of the maximum sentence to have been excessive.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.