People v. Monges CA4/1

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Monges once again argues that his detention was unlawful and that the

3 evidence Cortez obtained as a result of the detention should have been suppressed. As

we indicated at the outset, we find no error in the trial court's orders denying Monges's

motions to suppress.

A. Legal Principles

In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the trial

court's factual findings, express or implied, when they are supported by substantial

evidence. (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.) We exercise our own

independent judgment in determining, whether, on the facts found, a search or seizure

was lawful. (Ibid.)

With respect to investigative detentions, such as the one that occurred here, the

cases are clear that a police officer's seizure of a person need not be justified by probable

cause to arrest for a crime. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 230 (Souza).) "In

United States v. Cortez [(1981) 449 U.S. 411, 417 & fn. 2], the high court stressed the

importance of taking into account 'the totality of the circumstances' in determining the

propriety of an investigative stop or temporary…