PEOPLE v. WELLINGTON

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Given the arresting officer's expertise (see, People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128, 132) concerning drug trafficking by bus passengers, his observations of defendant's conduct and demeanor provided an objective credible reason for approaching defendant to request information (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 193; People v. Flowers, 239 A.D.2d 272 lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 939). Although the officer had already observed defendant carry a bag onto the bus, the officer's initial inquiry as to whether defendant was carrying any luggage was neither accusatory nor intimidating, and made no specific reference to the bag the officer had seen. Thus, the officer's questions did not take the encounter beyond a request for information (People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 193,supra). Once defendant denied having any luggage, which was contrary to the officer's observations, the officer had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, permitting further inquiry as to whether defendant owned the bag on the seat next to him (id.). Defendant's denial of ownership constituted an abandonment and the officer was entitled to search the bag.

SULLIVAN, J.P., NARDELLI, WILLIAMS, MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, JJ.