Opinion
June 15, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the court erroneously denied the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The arresting officer had probable cause to place the defendant under arrest, based upon first-hand information transmitted by an undercover officer who stated to the arresting officer that he had personally observed the defendant in possession of numerous vials of crack cocaine (see, People v. Rosario, 78 N.Y.2d 583, cert denied ___ US ___, 117 L Ed 2d 448; People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; Matter of Luther R., 172 A.D.2d 672; People v. Russo, 172 A.D.2d 295; People v. Rivera, 170 A.D.2d 625). Under such circumstances, probable cause may be demonstrated at a suppression hearing without requiring testimony from the observing, informing officer (see, People v. Petralia, supra, People v. Russo, supra; People v. Torres, 170 A.D.2d 954; People v Rivera, supra; People v. Hunter, 169 A.D.2d 538). As the defendant was arrested within one to two minutes after the undercover officer broadcast his observations to the arresting officer, and since the defendant was still at the location indicated and matched the description broadcast (see, People v. Zarzuela, 141 A.D.2d 788), it was more likely than not that the defendant was the person observed by the undercover officer to be in possession of cocaine (see, People v. Ivory, 160 A.D.2d 730).
In any event, the arresting officer clearly had an adequate foundation to exercise his common-law right of inquiry (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181). Before he could do so, however, and in response to only the officer's mere approach without any show of force, the defendant abandoned his bag of vials of crack cocaine by dropping it behind a fence and walking away (see, People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, cert denied 444 U.S. 969; People v. Jones, 171 A.D.2d 814; People v. Bloomfield, 156 A.D.2d 572). As a result of this calculated act, which was not in response to any unlawful police activity, the defendant forfeited any expectation of privacy he may have theretofore had in the bag. Thus, suppression was, for this reason as well, properly denied (see, People v. Eldridge, 178 A.D.2d 609; People v. McCants, 175 A.D.2d 847; People v. Carrington, 174 A.D.2d 572).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.