Opinion
March 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A police officer may approach a private citizen for the purpose of requesting information as long as there is some "objective, credible reason" for the intrusion (People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 185; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). In this case, the defendant and a companion were standing on a stairwell of an apartment building which had been the site of criminal activity when, upon the officer's entry into the building, the defendant's companion ran away. These factors, plus the officer's prior familiarity with the defendant, provided the officer with the necessary "objective credible reason" to warrant his approach to the defendant in a noncoercive fashion in order to request information (see, People v Hollman, supra; People v De Bour, supra; People v Mann, 143 A.D.2d 200). Although the officer was in plainclothes, he was known to the defendant.
Once the officer was in close proximity to the defendant, his observation of the defendant reaching to his waistband, together with his awareness that the defendant owned several guns, justified the officer's action of reaching for the defendant's waist area, at which point drugs fell out of the defendant's pants. A police officer may take precautions for his own safety and "[i]t is quite apparent to an experienced police officer, and indeed it may almost be considered common knowledge, that a handgun is often carried in the waistband" (People v Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267, 271; see also, People v Heron, 178 A.D.2d 656; People v McEachin, 148 A.D.2d 551, 552).
Moreover, the officer's testimony at the hearing was properly credited by the hearing Judge (see, People v Amarillo, 141 A.D.2d 551). Probable cause to arrest the defendant existed upon the drugs falling to the ground, and the subsequent seizure of the remainder of the drugs was proper. Accordingly, the physical evidence was not obtained as a result of illegal police conduct, and the hearing court properly denied suppression of the physical evidence obtained from the defendant and his statements made upon arrest. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.