Opinion
December 27, 2000.
Appeal from Judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Ward, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.
PRESENT: WISNER, J. P., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
County Court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. At approximately 2:00 A.M., two police officers observed defendant, who was noticeably intoxicated, exit a bar, stagger toward and "flop" into his vehicle, drive less than a block, and then park in the parking lot of a closed business. "The approach of occupants of a stopped or parked vehicle to request information is analyzed under the first tier of the De Bour hierarchy ( see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 222-223) and need only be justified by an `articulable basis,' meaning an `objective, credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality'" ( People v. Grady, 272 A.D.2d 952, quoting People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 985). The police properly approached defendant to ask why he was in the parking lot of a closed business at that hour ( see, People v. Hollman , 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191-192; People v. Powell, 246 A.D.2d 366, 368, appeal dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 886). As they approached defendant, however, he exited his vehicle, and when one of the officers called out to defendant to remain by his vehicle, defendant reached toward the dashboard of the vehicle. An officer who believed that defendant might be reaching for a gun directed defendant to remove his arm from the vehicle. Based on their observations of defendant's intoxicated state and peculiar behavior ( see, People v. McIntosh, 274 A.D.2d 740, lv granted 95 N.Y.2d 891; see also, People v. Cancer, 249 A.D.2d 696, 697-698, appeal denied 91 N.Y.2d 1005), the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot ( see, People v. De Bour, supra, at 223), thus justifying their detention of defendant.