Opinion
April 5, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered January 13, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ephie Trataros, Rosendale, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (David R. Huey of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The uncontradicted testimony at the suppression hearing established that a New York State Trooper observed the defendant's vehicle straddling two driving lanes in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, for which a stop was appropriate ( see, People v Bhoje, 275 A.D.2d 419; People v King, 266 A.D.2d 239; People v Ortiz, 265 A.D.2d 579; People v Henry, 258 A.D.2d 473; People v McCoy, 239 A.D.2d 437, 439). Pursuant to the violation stop, the trooper was authorized to approach the vehicle and ask for the defendant's license and registration ( see, Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106; People v Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, 774-775, cert denied 493 U.S. 966). When the defendant admitted that he did not have a valid license, the trooper had probable cause to arrest him pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 (1) ( see, People v Watson, 177 A.D.2d 676). The trooper was then authorized to impound the vehicle and conduct an inventory search ( see, People v Jackson, 241 A.D.2d 557), during which he recovered the contraband in question.
The defendant's contentions that the trooper exceeded the scope of the inventory search and that the inventory search was not properly reported are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.