Opinion
February 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's contention that his statements to the police were involuntarily made, due to alleged "psychological coercion" by the police, is lacking in merit. We conclude that the hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements to police because they were made after defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 78). Moreover, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248). The sworn statement upon which the police acted was made by an identified citizen affirming facts which the affiant had personally observed regarding defendant's actions or conveying information that the affiant had directly received from defendant. That sworn statement provided probable cause for defendant's arrest (see, People v Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90). Further, the police obtained independent evidence from the crime scene that supported the citizen's information regarding defendant's involvement in the crime (see, People v Robertson, 61 A.D.2d 600, affd 48 N.Y.2d 993).