Leonard I. Picker, for Appellant.
Susan H. Salomon, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The police officer's observations of the defendant in this case provided him with an "objective, credible reason" to approach the defendant and ask him questions about his destina- tion and identity (see, People v Hollman, ___ NY2d ___ [decided today]; People v DeBour, 40 NY2d 215, 223). The police officer's request to search the defendant's bag was improper, however, because it was not based on a "founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot" (People v Hollman, supra, at ___; People v DeBour, supra, at 223). Because the defendant's consent was a product of the improper police inquiry, the Appellate Division erred when it found that the defendant had consented to the search of his bag (see, People v Hollman, supra, at ___).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur. Judge Alexander took no part.