Opinion
October 21, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant's contention that he may seek review of the hearing court's suppression ruling on this appeal, inasmuch as the record does not demonstrate a knowing, voluntary and unequivocal waiver of that right (see, People v. Bray, 154 A.D.2d 692).
However, we find unpersuasive the claim that the hearing court erred in denying suppression. The testimony of experienced narcotics police officers established that the defendant conducted several exchanges of objects with different individuals at a location known for drug trafficking. Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's suspicious activity provided a valid basis for the police to approach him, and his flight upon being approached constituted legal justification for the pursuit by the officers (see, People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734; People v Rivera, 175 A.D.2d 78; People v. Wider, 172 A.D.2d 573; People v Kimble, 153 A.D.2d 591). Moreover, the pouches discarded by the defendant, which the police recognized as being of the type commonly used to carry vials of crack cocaine and which in fact subsequently were found to contain such vials, were properly recovered pursuant to this lawful police conduct. In light of the foregoing evidence, we discern no basis for disturbing the hearing court's determination.
In any event, we note that the hearing record demonstrates that the defendant's deliberate attempt to divest himself of the narcotics by dropping them into an open sewer drain near the end of a lengthy chase on foot constituted an abandonment of the physical evidence (see, People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, cert denied 444 U.S. 969; People v. Kosciusko, 149 A.D.2d 620). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.