Opinion
March 30, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
Defendant's observed furtive actions at a Port Authority bus departure gate provided an objective, credible reason for the drug interdiction team officer to inquire regarding defendant's identity and destination (People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 185). Defendant's agreement to speak with the officer and both his verbal and physical responses, gave rise to the officer's exercise of the common law right of inquiry, based upon a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223). Defendant's subsequent consent to the officer's request to look into the bag he carried, grounded in defendant's insistence that the bag was not his, cannot reasonably be viewed as coerced by any prior police action or question (see, People v Gonzalez, 39 N.Y.2d 122, 128-130). Lawful questioning within the close confines of a bus, which culminates in the surrender of contraband, is not tantamount to a seizure (Matter of Gissette Angela P., 80 N.Y.2d 863, affg 172 A.D.2d 117, 119).
We have considered defendant's additional arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.