Is light from police a factor in determining whether a suspect should be detained?

"[F]light from police is a proper considerationand indeed can be a key factorin determining whether in a particular case the police have sufficient cause to detain." (People v. Souza, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 235, italics added.) Even if we were to agree with defendant that "no objective inference of criminal activity may reasonably be inferred" from the facts other than defendant's flight from the traffic stop, our conclusion that defendant's flight was the key factor in a determination of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is still based on the totality of the circumstances "the whole picture." (Souza, at pp. 231, 239.)

Defendant argues there are myriad potential innocent explanations for the delay in the traffic stop, the "continuous movement" Officer Becerra saw inside the Camry as it drove down 47th Street, and defendant's presence in a high-crime area. However, "`[t]he possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.'" (People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186, 189; Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 125 [145 L.Ed.2d 570, 577] [reasoning that conduct "ambiguous and susceptible to innocent explanation" could nevertheless support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying detention by officers "to resolve the ambiguity"].)