#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney J. Lowman, Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 342]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1], [12]). Defendant failed to preserve for our *1263review his contentions that the search warrant authorizing a search of his person was defective because it did not specifically authorize a body cavity search and that the manner in which the search was conducted was unreasonable *(see generally People v Martin,*50 NY2d 1029, 1031 [1980]; *People v Tutt,*38 NY2d 1011, 1012-1013 [1976]). In any event, those contentions are without merit.

Contrary to the contention of defendant, the search of his person constituted a strip search and visual body cavity search rather than a full body cavity search *(see People v Walker,*27 AD3d 899, 901 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 764 [2006]). A strip search of a defendant is justified if the police have “ *‘a*reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing weapons or other contraband based on the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestee, and/or the circumstances of the arrest’ ” *(People v Kelley,*306 AD2d 699, 700 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 598 [2004], quoting *Weber v Dell,*804 F2d 796, 802 [1986], *cert denied*483 US 1020 [1987]; *see People v Maye,*43 AD3d 556, 558 [2007]; *People v Taylor,*294 AD2d 825, 827 [2002]). Here, the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the strip search and visual body cavity search of defendant based on a confidential informant’s statement to the police that defendant possessed “a substantial amount of crack cocaine” *(see Walker,*27 AD3d at 901; *Taylor,*294 AD2d at 827), along with the fact that no drugs were discovered when the police conducted a pat-down search of defendant. The visual body cavity search was conducted in a reasonable manner, i.e., in a holding cell after defendant had removed his clothing and the police had observed a substantial portion of the plastic bag containing crack cocaine hanging outside defendant’s rectum *(see Maye,*43 AD3d at 558).

We reject defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in its *Molineux*ruling. Evidence of the prior uncharged drug sale witnessed by the confidential informant shortly before defendant’s arrest was admissible with respect to the issue of defendant’s intent to sell drugs *(see Maye,*43 AD3d at 558; *People v Williams,*21 AD3d 1401, 1402-1403 [2005], *Iv denied 5*NY3d 885 [2005]; *People v Blunt,*280 AD2d 956, 957 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 826 [2001]), as was the evidence that defendant possessed $325 at the time of his arrest *(see People v Mosby,*237 AD2d 990 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 861 [1997]; *People v Gadsden,*192 AD2d 1103 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 718 [1993]). We agree with the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that he was under arrest when he was stopped, handcuffed, placed in a police car, transported to the police station and handcuffed to a ring attached to a wall while *1264the police obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of his person *(see People v Walker,*244 AD2d 796, 797 [1997]; *People v Quarles,*187 AD2d 200, 203 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 1018 [1993]). We reject his contention, however, that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, inasmuch as the People established that the confidential informant was reliable and had a sufficient basis of knowledge *(see Maye,*43 AD3d at 557; *People v Carter,*39 AD3d 1226, 1226-1227 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 863 [2007]; *People v Singletary,*275 AD2d 947 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 739 [2001]). Thus, the court properly refused to suppress the physical evidence seized from defendant’s person *(see Maye,*43 AD3d at 557; *Carter,.*39 AD3d at 1227). Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.