Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied in all respects. In the early morning hours, the police observed defendant running and engaging in various forms of strange behavior strongly suggesting that he was holding a weapon under his jacket. This, at a minimum, provided the officers with a founded suspicion of criminal activity and the right to exercise the common-law right of inquiry (People v. Velasquez, 217 A.D.2d 510,lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 852). Once defendant fled, ignoring the officer's direction to stop, the police had reasonable suspicion justifying their pursuit (People v. Sierra, 83 N.Y.2d 928, 930), leading to defendant's abandonment of the weapon. The spontaneous identification made by the first witness to arrive at the scene was not orchestrated by the police in any manner, and the identification by the other two witnesses was a prompt, on-the-scene, not unduly suggestive showup (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541). When, during processing at the police station, one officer asked another, within earshot of defendant, what type of weapon was recovered, this did not constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation and defendant's unsolicited spontaneous responses were not subject to suppression (see, People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.