People v. Jones CA2/5

Discussion Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence made pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. He contends that his initial detention was not valid, and his subsequent consent was not voluntary. While a defendant has the burden of filing a motion asserting the absence of a warrant, “[i]t is the People’s burden to justify a warrantless search. (Vale v. Louisiana (1970) 399 U.S. 30, 34; People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 717, 723; People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 127.)” (People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909, 915 fn. 4.) The standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment. (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.)

3 “When ruling on a suppression motion, ‘the power to judge the credibility of the witnesses, resolve any conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence and draw factual inferences, is vested in the trial court.’…