People v. Heinrichs CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review “In ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court must find the historical facts, select the rule of law, and apply it to the facts in order to determine whether the law as applied has been violated. [Citation.] We review the court’s resolution of the factual inquiry under the deferential substantial evidence standard. The ruling on whether the applicable law applies to the facts is a mixed question of law and fact that is subject to independent review. [Citation.]” (People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 505.)

3 Substantial Evidence Supports the Trial Court’s Denial of Heinrichs’s Motion to Suppress The Fourth Amendment’s proscription on unreasonable searches and seizures requires that an arrest be based on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed (People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 673), while a detention may be based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. (Id. at p. 674.) A traffic stop based on a suspicion that the driver has committed a traffic infraction is an example of a brief investigatory detention, permissible to determine whether a crime has been committed. But an investigatory traffic stop must remain a…