People v. Piar CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends that her traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked a reasonable suspicion that she was violating the law. We disagree. In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we must resolve all factual conflicts in the manner most favorable to the trial court's ruling. (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 563.) We defer to the court's express and implied findings if supported by substantial evidence, yet exercise our independent judgment in determining whether the challenged search or seizure is lawful based on those facts. (Ibid.; People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 673-674.) A detention is reasonable and thus lawful "'. . . when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity.' [Citation.]" (People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 299.) An officer may stop a motorist if the stop is based on a reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the Vehicle Code. (People v. Bennett (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 907, 912-913.)

In…