Opinion
November 10, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Willis, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In our view defendant's suppression motion was properly denied since the police officer had a reasonable basis to stop defendant and remove a deadly weapon from his pocket. We do not dispute defendant's general argument that the radio report, which must be presumed to be from an anonymous source, did not constitute "reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk anyone" fitting defendant's general description and location (People v Bruce, 78 A.D.2d 169, 172). Nor does the fact that police were dispatched to a high-crime area, in and of itself, permit this level of intrusion (People v Bond, 116 A.D.2d 28, 32-33; People v Bronston, 113 A.D.2d 627, 633). Here, however, the fact that defendant's dress, location and direction of travel, as observed by the police, was exactly as described over the radio confirmed the reliability of the tip (see, People v Taggart, 20 N.Y.2d 335, 337, appeal dismissed 392 U.S. 667; People v Sustr, 73 A.D.2d 582, 583). Further, information that shots were fired may well have mandated a more intensive police intrusion (People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 225). Finally, police observation of a bulge in defendant's pocket indicating the possible presence of a concealed weapon was a crucial factor (see, e.g., People v Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267, 271; People v Stewart, 41 N.Y.2d 65, 67; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 220-221, supra; compare People v Bond, 116 A.D.2d 28, 30, supra [no bulge observed prior to search]).