Opinion
November 18, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The statements the defendant made at police headquarters and the drugs recovered from the glove compartment of his car were properly ruled admissible, as there was no illegality in the procedures employed by the police to effectuate his arrest. The police clearly had probable cause to arrest based upon the statement made to them by a named citizen informant, that he had seen the defendant and his cohort James Edwards in a park in the vicinity in possession of crack cocaine vials. When the officers entered the park, they found the defendant and his cohort near a basketball court. A voice from a small crowd that had gathered in the park yelled "look under the tree". In addition to that information, a named citizen told one of the officers that he had seen the defendant and his cohort place a bag full of crack cocaine under a tree near where they were sitting. The other officer recovered the bag, which was full of crack cocaine vials.
We find that since the informant was an identified citizen the information he provided coupled with the discovery of the bag of crack cocaine gave the police probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v. Lewis, 172 A.D.2d 550; People v Williams, 159 A.D.2d 743). Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the informant cannot be characterized as a confidential police informant. He was not anonymous (cf., People v. Basnight, 162 A.D.2d 456) and he did not regularly supply the police with information. Therefore, his reliability and track record did not have to be shown (cf., People v. Trim, 160 A.D.2d 825).
Moreover, the defendant consented to the search of his car while he was being questioned at police headquarters (see, People v. Gonzalez, 39 N.Y.2d 122).
We further find that since the People bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the crack cocaine with the intent to sell it (see, Penal Law § 220.16), the citizen informant's testimony at the trial, describing his observations of the defendant's transactions both before and on the day of the defendant's arrest, was admissible (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Wheeler, 140 A.D.2d 731).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.