Opinion
March 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
The vehicle driven by the defendant drew the attention of two police officers assigned to the Anti-Crime Unit who were patrolling a high-crime area in an unmarked police vehicle when the four occupants of the defendant's vehicle appeared to be surveying the stores in the area. The officers then began to follow the vehicle and observed that the license plate number it bore was the same as that on the getaway car from an armed robbery which they had investigated one week earlier. They also noticed one of the passengers disappear from view.
Based upon their observations, the police acted properly when they stopped the car to question its occupants (see, People v Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559; People v. Allen, 112 A.D.2d 375; People v Finlayson, 76 A.D.2d 670, lv denied 51 N.Y.2d 1011, cert denied 450 U.S. 931). Moreover, once the vehicle was lawfully stopped, the officers, possessed with the knowledge that the occupants might be armed, were justified in approaching them with guns drawn and ordering them to step out of the car (see, Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106; People v. Evans, 106 A.D.2d 527; People v Livigni, 88 A.D.2d 386, affd 58 N.Y.2d 894). Furthermore, once the officers sighted a gun in plain view in the waistband of a passenger and observed other weapons on the front seat and rear floor of the vehicle, they had probable cause to arrest the occupants of the vehicle and conduct a search thereof (see, People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49; People v. Seruya, 113 A.D.2d 777; People v. Finlayson, supra).
Finally, we find that the hearing court's determination is supported by the record, and the officers' testimony was not so inherently incredible or improbable as to warrant the conclusion that no rational basis exists for the suppression court's findings on credibility (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700; People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561; People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.