OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
On Sеptember 17, 1981, Officers David Enders and Jules Alper stopped the car defendant was driving, because the car had a cracked windshield, void stickers and no front license plate. Enders approached defendant аnd asked for his license, the car registration and insurance card. Defеndant stated that the car was not his, and that he had no license. Defendаnt then produced a laminated plastic card with his picture on it, seаrched through papers scattered on the front seat in an apрarent effort to locate a document, and — behaving strangely, in the оfficer’s view — mumbled to his passenger, codefendant James McBride. After 30 seconds to a minute, Enders ordered the defendant out of the car for "sаfety reasons”. McBride remained in the front passenger seat while Alpеr stood outside the passenger door. When Enders asked defendant where the papers for the vehicle were, he answered "in there,” pointing toward the front seat of the car. The officer entered the vehicle looking for the documents.
By law, defendant was required to carry a registration certificate whilе operating the vehicle. Failure to produce the certificаte is presumptive evidence of operating an unregistered vehiсle, which is punishable by a fine or imprisonment (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 [1], [4], [18]). Here, defendant had no license and no standard identification; he could produce no registration certificate or proof of insurancе although given an opportunity to do so. He immediately disavowed the ownership of the car. The vehicle itself had void stickers, a cracked windshield and no front license plate. The officer observed that defеndant behaved strangely while in the vehicle, and ordered him out becausе he feared for his safety in permitting defendant to remain in the vehicle. When defendant was outside the car, Officer Enders asked where the registration certificate was, and defendant responded "in there,” pointing towаrd the front seat of the vehicle. For want of any standard identification, dеfendant could not simply be issued a summons. For reasons of safety, Officer Enders could not permit defendant to return to the vehicle to look further for the certificate; defendant’s own search of the area had in аny event already proved futile. Moreover, defendant indicated that the certificate was in the vehicle, and its general location. In thе limited circumstance presented by these facts, and in light of the diminished expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of automobiles (see, People v Belton,
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Notes
The suppression court said of Enders’ testimony: "It was coherent, it was cogent, it was credible, and I repeat, uncontradicted.” There was no other testimony at the suppression hearing.