In re D.S. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

D.S. contends he was detained before Farias ordered him to exit the vehicle and that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress because there were insufficient articulable facts to justify the detention. As a passenger in a parked vehicle, D.S. contends there was no indication he had engaged in criminal activity. He also argues the stop was pretextual and that his “nervousness” cannot furnish reasonable suspicion. The Attorney General concedes D.S. was detained but contends he forfeited this argument and that reasonable suspicion justified the detention. We conclude there was no forfeiture. To preserve his argument that his detention was unlawful, D.S had to “point out specific inadequacies” in the warrantless search. (People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 135.) D.S. did that in the underlying proceedings. In his written motion he contended that his detention must be supported by reasonable suspicion that a detained person is involved in criminal activity. And in their written opposition the People countered there was reasonable

3 suspicion. We conclude D.S. sufficiently preserved his claim that the detention was unlawful. In reviewing the denial…