PEOPLE v. DUNBAR (2005)

 OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

 The suppression court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, held that the police did not have a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, as needed in order to engage in the more extended, accusatory questioning attendant to a common-law inquiry.   As we held in People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191-192, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 [1992], a consent to search will not be upheld unless the request to search is supported by a founded suspicion of criminality (see also People v. Tejeda, 217 A.D.2d 932, 630 N.Y.S.2d 160 [4th Dept.1995];  People v. Carter, 199 A.D.2d 817, 606 N.Y.S.2d 786 [3d Dept.1993];  People v. Alston, 193 A.D.2d 883, 597 N.Y.S.2d 823 [3d Dept.1993];  People v. Boyd, 188 A.D.2d 239, 594 N.Y.S.2d 147 [1st Dept.1993] ).   Here, as the courts determined, defendant granted the police permission to search his person and his car only after questioning that might reasonably have led him to believe that he was suspected (without a founded suspicion) of criminality.

When, as here, there is support in the record for the lower courts' undisturbed finding as to the lack of a founded suspicion of criminality, our review is at an end.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

MEMORANDUM.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.