What is the standard of appeal review of a motion to suppress?

"'"The standard of appellate 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."'" (People v. Leath (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 344, 350.) We use our independent judgment "on the facts so found" to determine whether the Fourth Amendment was violated. (Ibid.) We do not decide the credibility of the witnesses, resolve conflicts in the testimony, or weigh the evidence. Those determinations are made by the trial court. (People v. Superior Court (Keithley) (1975) 13 Cal.3d 406, 410.)

"[A] person has been 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." (United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554.) "Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." (Ibid.; People v. Leath, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 350 [a detention did not occur where police officers asked for the defendant's "identification card and retained it"].)

Page 4

"Unlike a detention, a consensual encounter between a police officer and an individual does not implicate the Fourth Amendment." (People v. Rivera (2007) 41 Cal.4th 304, 309.) "It is well established that law enforcement officers may approach someone on the street or in another public place and converse if the person is willing to do so." (Ibid.) "There is no Fourth Amendment violation as long as circumstances are such that a reasonable person would feel free to leave or end the encounter." (Ibid.) "Consensual encounters require no articulable suspicion of criminal activity." (Ibid.)

In People v. Bennett (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 396, 402, the police officer asked the defendant if he would mind waiting in a police car so the officer could run a warrants check. The defendant agreed and cooperated. The court ruled the encounter was consensual. The officer "spoke in a polite, conversational tone and applied no physical or verbal force that might have caused a reasonable person to feel compelled to respond." (Ibid.)