Opinion
February 13, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied suppression of the gun which was found on the defendant. The police had an articulable reason to approach (see, e.g., People v. Allen, 181 A.D.2d 684), and thereafter had a reasonable suspicion to pursue and subsequently detain the defendant (see, People v. Trellez, 189 A.D.2d 906, cert denied 510 U.S. 997; see generally, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Bruce, 78 A.D.2d 169) based upon the information that the arresting police officer had received from an identified telephone caller (see, Matter of Darren R., 186 A.D.2d 806), the defendant's suspicious behavior in standing over a prone body and in attempting to flee upon the officer's approach (see, People v. Trellez, supra), the close spatial and temporal vicinity of the description of the site of the crime described by the caller (see, People v. Miles, 210 A.D.2d 353).
Once the officers had reason to restrain the defendant, they were allowed a limited search of the defendant for their own safety in light of the report of "shots fired" (see, People v Price, 194 A.D.2d 634; People v. Brown, 190 A.D.2d 1003). Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.