Opinion
May 31, 1996
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Reed, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress physical evidence seized after his arrest because there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of his vehicle. While on patrol, the arresting officer received a radio call that defendant was driving a motor vehicle in an identified location. The officer knew defendant and knew that his driver's license had been revoked. Furthermore, before stopping defendant's vehicle, the officer confirmed by a computer check that defendant's driver's license had been revoked. Therefore, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511), justifying his stop of the vehicle ( see, People v. Sallito, 186 A.D.2d 766, 767, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1030; People v. Ceballos, 175 A.D.2d 315, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1074). The failure of defendant to produce a driver's license provided the officer with probable cause to arrest him for that offense ( see, People v. Watson, 177 A.D.2d 676, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 954; People v. Miller, 149 A.D.2d 538, 541).