Opinion
May 2, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. The police received a radio transmission which provided information of a black man wearing specified clothing with a gun in his waistband. The officers arrived at that "drug prone" location within minutes, and observed defendant within a block of the location, wearing clothing that precisely matched the description. This provided the police with a common-law right to inquire. Thereafter, defendant's actions in rapidly walking across the street when the police exited their marked patrol car, refusing to stop when the police ordered him to do so, and moving his hands near his waistband provided the police with reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him ( People v. Bora, 191 A.D.2d 384, affd 83 N.Y.2d 531). Contrary to defendant's contention, the officer's request for his name and address after the patdown revealed he was unarmed, which request led to the discovery that defendant was secreting crack vials in his mouth, did not constitute a post-frisk investigation but was merely a request for routine information which was minimally intrusive under the circumstances ( compare, People v. Chisholm, 180 A.D.2d 744, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1047; People v. Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 685).
The court did not, as defendant claims on appeal, deny his request to represent himself at trial. On the contrary, the court agreed to hear his request to proceed pro se, but defendant abandoned that request ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 50 N.Y.2d 553).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.