Opinion
January 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At about 8:40 P.M. on September 13, 1991, Police Officer Kenneth Colbert and his partner were on uniformed patrol in a marked police car when they observed a taxicab make a left turn without signaling in the vicinity of Riverdale and Straus Streets in Brooklyn. As the officers put their lights and siren on, Officer Colbert noticed the defendant, who was the passenger in the rear seat of the taxicab, look over his shoulder. Just before the taxicab came to a stop, Officer Colbert saw the defendant lean forward.
While his partner approached the driver's side of the taxicab, Officer Colbert approached the passenger side of that vehicle. When Officer Colbert shined his flashlight into the rear passenger compartment "for my safety to make sure he didn't have a weapon", Officer Colbert observed the defendant trying to kick a brown paper bag under the front seat. Upon observing the defendant kicking the bag, Officer Colbert asked the defendant, "What was in the bag?". After the defendant responded, "it's not my bag. What bag are you talking about?", Officer Colbert asked the defendant to step out of the taxicab since "it was my belief that there could possibly be a gun in the bag". Once the defendant was out of the taxicab, Officer Colbert retrieved the bag, opened it, and found that it was filled with vials of crack cocaine.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the court properly denied suppression of the contents of the paper bag. Since the police officer observed the taxicab make a left-hand turn without signaling, it is clear that the initial stop of the taxicab for the traffic violation was proper ( see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; People v Barnum, 175 A.D.2d 332). Moreover, Officer Colbert's use of the flashlight to illuminate the rear passenger compartment of the taxicab was also proper ( see, People v Beriguette, 84 N.Y.2d 978).
Given the danger inherent in the stop of a motor vehicle ( see, Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106; People v Bush, 171 A.D.2d 801) and the defendant's furtive attempts to hide the bag under the front seat, Officer Colbert's belief that the defendant may have been in possession of a weapon was reasonable under the circumstances ( see, People v Jean-Louis, 154 A.D.2d 393; People v McClane, 143 A.D.2d 848). Thus, Officer Colbert was justified in making the reasonable and minimal inquiry of what was in the bag ( see, People v Rodriguez, 160 A.D.2d 960; also see, People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181).
The defendant's express disavowal of his ownership of the bag was not provoked by any unlawful police conduct and constituted an abandonment ( see, People v Jacob, 202 A.D.2d 444; also see, People v Green, 185 A.D.2d 1009). Therefore, the subsequent seizure and opening of the bag by Officer Colbert was permissible. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Thompson and Florio, JJ., concur.