People v. Terry

street address. That call and the responding officer’s observation of a person matching that description at that address provided the officer with a founded suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify exercise of the common-law right of inquiry (see, People v Stewart, 41 NY2d 65 , 69; People v La Pene, 40 NY2d 210 , 221; People v Atwood, 105 AD2d 1055 ). Defendant’s immediate flight upon seeing the officer approach and the officer’s observation that defendant was carrying a plastic bag in his hand heightened the level of suspicion to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was, or had been, engaged in criminal activity and justified the officer’s pursuit of defendant (see, People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444 ; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ; People v Johnson, 186 AD2d 420 ; People v Anderson, 185 AD2d 355 , lv denied 80 NY2d 926 ). Because defendant discarded the plastic bag during a lawful pursuit, subsequent retrieval of it by the police did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights (see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Leung, supra, at 736 ; People v Dukes, 184 AD2d 522 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). Moreover, defendant’s attempt to divest himself of incriminating evidence by tossing the plastic bag under a parked car during that lawful pursuit was an independent act involving a calculated risk and constituted an abandonment of the bag and its contents (see, People v Hall, 152 AD2d 905 , affd 75 NY2d 826 ; People v Anderson, supra; People v Dukes, supra; People v Rivers, 176 AD2d 902 , lv denied 79 NY2d 863 ; People v Rivera, 175 AD2d 78 , lv denied 78 NY2d 1129 ). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.