Opinion
April 8, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court did not err in denying suppression of the defendant's postarrest statement. The police officer's stop of the defendant's automobile two days after the shooting of the victim was based upon reasonable suspicion (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223) inasmuch as the vehicle precisely matched a witness's description of the car used in the shooting (see, People v. Salvaty, 163 A.D.2d 494; People v. Byrd, 156 A.D.2d 374). In addition, after the stop the defendant informed the officer that his name was Rudolph Bailey, an alias known to be used by him and which was printed on his automobile registration. The defendant's girlfriend also told police that the defendant drove a vehicle matching the description of the one stopped and that the defendant had been involved in a shooting. These factors elevated the level of suspicion to probable cause and justified the defendant's arrest (see, People v. Salvaty, supra; People v Byrd, supra; People v. White, 117 A.D.2d 127, 131).
The defendant claims that the police, who falsely stated that there were people who could place him at the scene of the shooting, created a substantial risk that he would incriminate himself, thereby rendering his confession involuntary. This claim is without merit since the police had a reasonable basis to believe that there were people who could place the defendant at the scene of the crime and the police conduct was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny him due process (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v. Peters, 157 A.D.2d 806, 807-808; People v. Lewis, 122 A.D.2d 426, 427).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.