Opinion
February 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule (Aguilar v Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v United States, 393 U.S. 410), it is well settled that where probable cause is predicated in whole or part upon the hearsay statement of an informant, it must be demonstrated that (1) the information is reliable, and (2) the informant had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge (see, People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398; People v Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231; see also, People v Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635). The Court of Appeals has observed that the "basis of knowledge" prong of the test may be satisfied, inter alia, upon a showing that the information furnished is so detailed as to make it clear that it must have been based upon personal knowledge (People v Bigelow, supra, at 424).
On appeal, the defendant contends that the People failed to establish that the informant possessed a sufficient basis for his knowledge. We disagree. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing reveals the requisite degree of specificity and detail so as to justify the inference that the informant's tip was premised on personal knowledge. The informant accurately provided the defendant's name, as well as the make, license plate number, and color of his automobile. The informant also indicated that the defendant could be found at a specific time and location, and even correctly specified that he would be carrying cocaine in a brown paper bag. Since the informant's statements were fully corroborated by the subsequent police investigation, which developed information "consistent with detailed predictions by the informant", the "basis of knowledge" requirement was satisfied (People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423-424, supra; People v Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 491-492).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210, 213, n 2; People v Havelka, 45 N.Y.2d 636, 641; cf., People v Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 51, cert denied 469 U.S. 852). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.