In re Elmer A. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Elmer contends Carlon's search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment

because he did not have a reasonable suspicion to believe Elmer and his friend were

1 Deputy Carlon testified that, at this point, they were not free to leave and if they tried to walk away, he "would have detained them." The trial court found Elmer was detained at the time he was approached by Carlon and advised to sit down. Even though Elmer did not follow Carlon's directions, the People have not argued there was no detention of Elmer at that time. 3 selling drugs or engaged in any other criminal activity and were therefore unlawfully

detained. (See In re William G. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 550, 567.) Elmer contends the juvenile

court erred by denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1 motion to

suppress evidence obtained from the unlawful detention.

When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to the trial

court's factual findings when supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Camacho

(2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, 830.) We then exercise our independent judgment to determine

whether, on the facts found by the court, the search was…