Opinion
April 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Vincent Vitale, J.
Defendant, after committing a gunpoint robbery, was pursued by an employee of the establishment until further pursuit was dissuaded by the display of a pistol. The employee called the police. Based upon this information, a responding officer arrested defendant.
The denial of defendant's motion to suppress, inter alia, physical evidence and identification evidence, under the circumstances, was proper. The information upon which the officer acted was supplied by a highly reliable source and consequently, the officer possessed a sufficiently articulable reason to approach defendant and inquire as to his conduct (see, People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 213). Further, the viewing of the waistline bulge in the small of defendant's back provided the officer with ample justification to pursue the investigation (see, People v Stroller, 42 N.Y.2d 1052).
Nor do we find the identification of defendant near the scene to have been improper (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023 ).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.