Court Opinion

ID: 5763444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 17:18:33.093725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:36.103942
License: Public Domain

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. An officer saw defendant holding his hand over the front of his waist, partially obscuring what appeared to be the barrel of a derringer protruding from his waistband. Although this object *334ultimately turned out to be a distinctively shaped belt buckle, the hearing court examined the buckle and made a determination that, from the officer’s vantage point at the time of the incident, the buckle would have reasonably appeared to be a firearm. We find no reason to disturb that factual determination (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Moreover, the officer simply made a common-law inquiry, but defendant ignored the officer’s attempts to engage him and, prior to any police action constituting a seizure, he “actively fled from the police” (People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 500-501 [2006]), which heightened the level of suspicion (see People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 930 [1994]). Accordingly, defendant’s abandonment of contraband during his flight from pursuit was not precipitated by any unlawful police conduct. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.