| People v Walker |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07584 [55 AD3d 343] |
| October 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AllenWalker, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Melissa Pennington of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), rendered October 10,2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession ofstolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, toconcurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The information in a police radioreport, based on an anonymous 911 call reporting criminal behavior, combined with the officer'sobservation of the suspicious behavior of defendant, who matched the detailed description of oneof the suspects at the location, provided the officer with, at least, a founded suspicion thatcriminality was afoot, permitting him to exercise the common-law right of inquiry (see People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496,499-500 [2006]; People v Casimey,39 AD3d 228 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 983 [2007]). Since the officer was justifiedin engaging in a level two inquiry that would have permitted him to ask accusatory questions, hewas similarly justified in asking defendant for additional identification when the identity carddefendant initially produced from his wallet did not include an address. We note that a validaddress would have been important had it become necessary to locate defendant for furtherinvestigation. The request for further identification was a continuation of the lawful common-lawinquiry, and there is no merit to defendant's suggestion that the encounter had become alevel-three seizure.
After the officer requested additional identification, defendant pulled out a second wallet,looked inside, and then quickly put it away. This conduct heightened the officer's suspicion and[*2]provided further justification for the officer's request toexamine the wallet, which defendant voluntarily turned over, leading to the discovery of stolencredit cards. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.