PEOPLE v. ROBBINS

Defendant's motion to suppress the cocaine was properly denied since his discarding of it during the chase was not precipitated by illegal police conduct (People v Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 736). The stop of the cab in which defendant was a passenger was justified by the officers' observation that the cab's brake lights were not functioning (People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413), and pursuit of the defendant justified by his precipitate flight, hand motion grabbing at his waistband, and glances over his shoulder, all of which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime (see, People v Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444). Accordingly, the pursuit by the officers was justified and defendant's abandonment of the contraband during the chase was not in response to unlawful police conduct (see, People v Matienzo, 81 N.Y.2d 778).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Ellerin, J., dissents in a memorandum as follows:

I would reverse based on People v Grant ( 164 A.D.2d 170, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 926). The flight of the defendant, in and of itself, could not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (People v Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444, 448, citing People v May, 81 N.Y.2d 725). Here there were no facts beyond defendant passenger's flight upon the officers' approach to the cab on which to base a finding of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on the part of defendant.