Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not erroneously deny his suppression motion. The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the police first became suspicious when they observed that the automobile in which the defendant was a passenger lacked a front license plate (cf., People v Sherman, 106 A.D.2d 416; People v Gadsden, 192 A.D.2d 1103). Upon a closer inspection of the vehicle, it appeared that its passenger side door lock was damaged (cf., People v Whiten, 156 A.D.2d 606; People v Adams, 194 A.D.2d 102). Before the officers had an opportunity to stop the car, it voluntarily came to a halt in front of the defendant's address. Based upon these articulable bases, the officers were justified in approaching the car to exercise their common-law right of inquiry (see, People v Ocasio, 201 A.D.2d 15; see also, People v Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470).
Thereafter, from his lawful vantage point on the sidewalk adjacent to the car, the arresting officer saw the defendant move his hands to obscure his waist area. The officer recognized that guns are frequently carried in a waistband and that the defendant's movements were indicative of his hiding or reaching for a gun (cf., People v Reyes, 91 A.D.2d 935). Once the defendant reached for his waistband, the officer was not required to wait until he saw the "glint of steel" (see, People v Morales, 198 A.D.2d 129). At that point he was justified in drawing his weapon and ordering the defendant to move his hands (see, People v Miller, 208 A.D.2d 423). When the defendant complied, the gun was visible, thereby providing probable cause to arrest (see, People v Cox, 210 A.D.2d 497; People v Jackson, 205 A.D.2d 640; People v Harrington, 193 A.D.2d 756).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.