What is the test for denying a motion to suppress evidence because the evidence subsequently obtained was "fruit of the poisonous tree"?

Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because his detention was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and any evidence subsequently obtained was "fruit[] of the poisonous tree." ³ We defer to the trial court's factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence, but

Page 5

exercise our independent judgment in determining the legality of the detention. (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.)

A police officer may temporarily detain a suspect based on a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime, notwithstanding the Fourth Amendment's requirements of probable cause and a search warrant. (People v. Durazo (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 728, 734.) An ordinary traffic stop is treated as an investigatory detention and is justified if based on a reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the Vehicle Code or some other law. (Ibid.) The touchstone of reasonableness is the presence of "'"specific and articulable facts"'" that warrant the intrusion on personal liberty and property. (Id. at p. 735.)