| People v Stevenson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08263 [55 AD3d 486] |
| October 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Wallace Stevenson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Aaron Ginandes of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered March 23, 2007,convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him toan aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbingthe court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People vProchilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Police officers responded to an anonymous report thatthere was an undescribed man with a gun a block away from their location. Almost immediately,they observed defendant, who was running toward them from the described location, lookingover his shoulder, and carrying a clear bag that contained what appeared to be possible narcoticspackaging material. At this point, the police had ample basis for a level two common-law inquiry(see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). When an officer tried to blockdefendant's path and get him to stop, this did not transform the inquiry into a seizure requiringreasonable suspicion (see People v Rodriguez, 49 AD3d 431 [2008], lv denied 10NY3d 964 [2008]; People v Cherry, 30 AD3d 185, 185-186 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 811 [2006]; People v Grunwald, 29 AD3d 33, 38-39 [2006], lv denied 6NY3d 848 [2006]). Defendant refused to stop, continued running, threw the bag over the officer'shead and crashed into him, resulting in a struggle. At this point, the totality of the chain of eventsprovided reasonable suspicion of criminality, warranting a frisk that revealed a firearm. It is of nomoment that defendant's flight was toward the officer, in an effort to get past him, especiallysince defendant was also discarding the bag; defendant was clearly attempting to evade theofficer and distance himself from possible contraband (see People v Wigfall, 295 AD2d222 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 540 [2002]; see also People v Wells, 14 AD3d320 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 51 [2006]). In addition, the bag, which was later found tocontain cocaine, was legally seized after defendant abandoned it (see People v Reyes, 83NY2d 945 [1994]). [*2]Accordingly, there is no basis forsuppression of the weapon, the drugs, or defendant's postarrest statements.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Williams, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.