Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to reopen the suppression hearing (see, People v. Hults, 150 A.D.2d 726, 727, affd 76 N.Y.2d 190; see also, CPL 710.40; People v. Grosfeld, 58 N.Y.2d 887, 888).
We reject defendant's contention that the warrantless search of the trunk of his car, including the closed containers located therein, was illegal. The suppression court properly concluded that the search was authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement (see, People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673, 677-679; People v. Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170, 181, cert denied 465 U.S. 1028; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 53-55, rearg denied 56 N.Y.2d 646; People v. King, 193 A.D.2d 1075; People v. Carey, 178 A.D.2d 992; People v. Miller, 177 A.D.2d 989, 990).
Defendant's argument that the security officer's use of a flashlight to illuminate the interior of his car constituted an illegal search is not before us because that argument was not advanced before the suppression court (see, People v. Burgess, 168 A.D.2d 685, 686). In any event, it lacks merit. It is well settled that "the officers' use of a flashlight to illuminate the interior of the vehicle [does] not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment" (People v. Scott, 166 A.D.2d 919, 920, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 911; see, Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739-740; People v. Smith, 42 N.Y.2d 961, 963).