In addition, the officers in this case had received a tip from an arrestee, i.e., an identified citizen informant, that there were guns stashed in the area where they observed defendant and his companion. While we agree with the majority that there was no information establishing the reliability of the tip, such information may still be relied upon in a De Bour analysis. “Regardless of whether ... the citizen-informant's basis of knowledge was sufficiently established ..., the combination of his report to the police and the officers' observations ... provided the requisite reasonable suspicion” (Matter of Shallany S., 11 A.D.3d 414, 414, 783 N.Y.S.2d 567;see People v. Gresty, 237 A.D.2d 931, 932, 655 N.Y.S.2d 217). We therefore conclude that, based on the combination of the tip, the high-crime location, the presence of a recent shooting victim, defendant's initial behavior and his conduct indicative of a weapon, the officers had the requisite reasonable suspicion for the pursuit.

In the instant case, there was no testimony set forth in the amended return establishing any of the foregoing situations so as to warrant a search. It is well settled that the smell of marijuana alone is sufficient to provide trained and experienced police officers in the area of narcotics probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants ( People v. Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260, affd 36 NY2d 971; People v. Turchio, 244 AD2d 366, 367; People v. Gresty, 237 AD2d 931; People v. Mangan, 55 AD2d 247). For a hearing court to make a finding that an officer had probable cause to conduct a search, the officer's expertise, training or experience with respect to knowledge of the smell of burnt marijuana must be adequately developed in the record ( see People v. Martin, 169 AD2d 1006, 1007; People v. Chestnut, 43 AD2d at 262; see also Matter of Obulio M., 106 AD2d 297; People v. Mandato, 195 Misc 2d 636 [App Term, 2d Dept 2003]).

In the instant case, there was no testimony set forth in the amended return establishing any of the foregoing situations so as to warrant a search. It is well settled that the smell of marijuana alone is sufficient to provide trained and experienced police officers in the area of narcotics probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants ( People v. Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260, affd 36 NY2d 971; People v. Turchio, 244 AD2d 366, 367; People v. Gresty, 237 AD2d 931; People v. Mangan, 55 AD2d 247). For a hearing court to make a finding that an officer had probable cause to conduct a search, the officer's expertise, training or experience with respect to knowledge of the smell of burnt marijuana must be adequately developed in the record ( see People v. Martin, 169 AD2d 1006, 1007; People v. Chestnut, 43 AD2d at 262; see also Matter of Obulio M., 106 AD2d 297; People v. Mandato, 195 Misc 2d 636 [App Term, 2d Dept 2003]).

In the instant case, there was no testimony set forth in the amended return establishing any of the foregoing situations so as to warrant a search. It is well settled that the smell of marijuana alone is sufficient to provide trained and experienced police officers in the area of narcotics probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants (People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260 [1974], affd 36 NY2d 971 [1975]; People v Turchio, 244 AD2d 366, 367 [1997]; People v Gresty, 237 AD2d 931 [1997]; People v Mangan, 55 AD2d 247 [1976]). For a hearing court to make a finding that an officer had probable cause to conduct a search, the officer's expertise, training or experience with respect to knowledge of the smell of burnt marijuana must be adequately developed in the record (see People v Martin, 169 AD2d 1006, 1007 [1991]; People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d at 262; see also Matter of Obulio M., 106 AD2d 297 [1984]; People v Mandato, 195 Misc 2d 636 [App Term, 2d Dept 2003]).

We reject that contention. The evaluation of credibility by the hearing court is entitled to great weight and its determination will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record ( see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Gresty, 237 A.D.2d 931).

Officer Bongiovanni testified that, when he first approached the car, he smelled a moderate or stale odor of marihuana coming from inside of the car. Although the smell of marihuana alone is sufficient to provide trained and experienced police officers in the area of narcotics probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants (People v Turchio, 244 AD2d 366, 367 [2d Dept 1997]; People v Gresty, 237 AD2d 931 [4th Dept 1997]; People v Mangan, 55 AD2d 247, 250 [3d Dept 1976]; see also, People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260, 261 [3d Dept 1974], affd 36 NY2d 971 [1975]), Bongiovanni also received permission from the driver, Terrance Wright, to search the car after he was questioned about the marihuana smell. The consent was given shortly after Wright told Bongiovanni that the defendant was the one who had smoked the marihuana.