P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. We disagree.1 On review of a motion to suppress, we view the facts most favorably to the respondent and uphold the magistrate‟s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 673; People v. Watkins (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408.) However, we decide independently whether the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 924.) In arguing that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion, defendant first asserts that the officers did not have grounds to detain him for attempting to flee their presence because his flight was not “headlong.” This argument is specious. Although the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119 [145 L.Ed.2d 570] at one point used the term “headlong” to describe the defendant‟s flight in that case (id. at p. 124 [145 L.Ed.2d at p. 576]), nothing in the court‟s holding turned on that adjective. What the Supreme Court held was that “unprovoked flight upon noticing the

In addition to defending the denial of the suppression motion on the…