Opinion
April 27, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied his motion to suppress evidence derived from his consent to search the suitcases which he transported from Los Angeles to New York. The record supports the hearing court's conclusion that Port Authority detectives possessed the "founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223) necessary to exercise the common-law right of inquiry based upon the information received from a Drug Enforcement Agent in Los Angeles, their own observations of the defendant's behavior upon his arrival in New York, and the defendant's responses to informational questioning (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 185). Accordingly, the defendant's consent to the detectives' request to look inside his luggage was not the product of an illegal police inquiry.
Ritter, J.P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.