Opinion
December 20, 1989
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Celli, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his showup identification. We disagree. The detention and transportation of defendant by the police to the scene of the reported burglary for the purpose of viewing by a witness did not, under the circumstances of this case, constitute a de facto arrest. Defendant was stopped a short distance from the burglary scene at approximately 3:20 A.M. while he was walking alone down the side of the road. In stopping defendant and transporting him to the scene, the police used no force and defendant was not handcuffed. The transportation was for a short distance and took approximately one minute. Further, defendant was not questioned during his transportation to the scene. These facts support the suppression court's finding that the police actions were within the bounds of a lawful investigatory stop (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 242; People v Smith, 138 A.D.2d 972, 973-974, affd 73 N.Y.2d 961; People v Liner, 133 A.D.2d 555, 556, appeal dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 945; People v Davison, 127 A.D.2d 680, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1003). Further, given the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the officer's failure to advise defendant of the purpose of the detention did not transform this investigatory stop into a de facto arrest (see, People v Liner, supra).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.