Opinion
July 9, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in declining to suppress the gun which the police recovered during a stop and frisk. We disagree.
A police officer is authorized to stop and detain a person if the officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity, and to frisk the person if the officer reasonably suspects a danger of physical injury or that the person is armed and dangerous (see, CPL 140.50, [3]; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Marine, 142 A.D.2d 368; People v. Jackson, 111 A.D.2d 831; People v. Williams, 79 A.D.2d 147). Because an experienced officer credibly testified that he saw the outline of a gun in the defendant's jacket, while the defendant was acting nervously in a high crime area, the hearing court properly determined that the stop and frisk was warranted and correctly declined to suppress the gun (see, People v Milliner, 146 A.D.2d 717; People v. Trulio, 135 A.D.2d 758; People v. Mandley, 134 A.D.2d 622; People v. Henriquez, 128 A.D.2d 803).
We also find that the hearing court acted within its discretion in refusing to permit the in-court demonstration requested by the defendant (see, People v. Mariner, 147 A.D.2d 659, 660; Norfleet v. New York City Tr. Auth., 124 A.D.2d 715, 717; Washington v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 13 A.D.2d 710). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.