PEOPLE v. STARZYNSKI (2000)

Defendant contends that the stop of his vehicle by the police for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle was a pretext to investigate an unrelated burglary.   Even assuming, arguendo, that the purpose of the stop was to investigate the burglary, we nevertheless conclude that the stop was proper.   The police officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot (see, People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 749, 753, 622 N.Y.S.2d 483, 646 N.E.2d 785, cert. denied 516 U.S. 905, 116 S.Ct. 271, 133 L.Ed.2d 192;  People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562).   Further, the officer's request to view the sole of defendant's shoe was not an unreasonable intrusion (see, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889;  People v. Dunn, 77 N.Y.2d 19, 26, 563 N.Y.S.2d 388, 564 N.E.2d 1054, cert. denied 501 U.S. 1219, 111 S.Ct. 2830, 115 L.Ed.2d 1000).   In any event, the record contains no evidence of police coercion or misrepresentation, and thus we conclude that defendant voluntarily consented to the officer's viewing the sole of his shoe (see, People v. Hughes, 138 A.D.2d 523, 524, 526 N.Y.S.2d 130;  People v. Long, 124 A.D.2d 1016, 1017, 508 N.Y.S.2d 774).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: