Opinion
March 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to controvert the search warrant. The affidavit in support of the warrant application recited that the source of the informant's knowledge was his personal observations and that on five separate occasions the informant had furnished information to the police which led to the arrests and seizure of narcotics. Such an affidavit satisfies the Aguilar-Spinelli test (see, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410; People v Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549; cf., People v. Williams, 191 A.D.2d 473). Furthermore, the court correctly determined that the defendant's inculpatory statement upon his arrest, indicating that the narcotics belonged to him, was admissible. The police are not required to take affirmative steps to prevent a person who is in custody from making incriminating statements (see, People v Walker, 186 A.D.2d 606; People v. Finn, 180 A.D.2d 746; People v Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.