Opinion
November 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.).
We reject defendant's claim that the bag containing the gun was unlawfully seized and should not in any event have been opened without a search warrant. Evidence at the hearing was that the uniformed arresting officer responded to an early morning radio message of shots fired in an area where there had been a traffic accident a short time before; arriving at the scene, the officer, while still in his vehicle, received another radio message of a black male wearing black pants and a light or white colored sweatshirt having put a gun in the trunk of a black car; simultaneously, the officer observed defendant, who matched the description, opening the trunk of a black car; the officer, without drawing his gun, exited his vehicle, approached defendant, who held a black leather bag, told defendant not to open the trunk and asked to see the bag; and defendant then gave the bag to the officer who felt what seemed to be a gun inside, and, upon opening the bag, discovered a loaded automatic gun, whereupon, he arrested defendant. This evidence, credited by the hearing court, gave rise to a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot justifying a common-law right of inquiry (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223) that the officer exercised when he asked defendant for the bag (see, People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267, 270-271). Furthermore, the report of shots fired, coupled with the fact the bag felt like it contained a gun, justified the officer's limited intrusion of opening the bag in order to insure his safety (see, People v. Benjamin, supra, at 271; People v. De Bour, supra, at 225).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.