Defendant was seen at a bank automatic teller machine (ATM) in what was known to be a high-crime location, apparently "casing" the area, by looking back and forth repeatedly between the ATM customer and a marked radio motor patrol car. When the officers approached defendant, he initially reacted to the approach by attempted flight. The officers, acting on their own observations and not on a radio run, did not draw their weapons, and greeted defendant with an innocuous "what's up", instead of a demand for identification. Accordingly, the police activity at bar was initially even less intrusive than that found only "`an exercise of the officer's right to request information'" in People v Ocasio ( 201 A.D.2d 15, 18). Once the defendant reached quickly for his waistband, the officer was not required to wait until he actually saw the "`glint of steel'" (People v. Morales, 198 A.D.2d 129, 130, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 808), and appropriately relied on common police knowledge as to the practice of carrying guns in waistbands (see, People v. Alozo, 180 A.D.2d 584, 586). Therefore, the motion court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.
We have considered the defendant's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.