What is the test for detention of a minor who was detained by police on suspicion of possessing a firearm?

Even assuming the detention of defendant required a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in criminal activity, that suspicion was amply demonstrated under the facts. Halliday, the school principal, had relayed information to the police that established that defendant and his brother, both Norteo gang members, were seen stopping in close proximity to a group of Soreo gang members, defendant got out of the car, retrieved an object from the trunk, and placed it in the area of his waistband. One could reasonably infer that the retrieved item was a weapon. Had it not been for Halliday's quick intervention, a much more serious altercation would likely have ensued. The officers, upon receiving this information, checked both of the brothers' criminal records and found that defendant had a prior adjudication for misdemeanor section 245, subdivision (a)(1), which resulted in a prohibition against him possessing a firearm until age 30. The vehicle, that the officers observed defendant, his wife, and his brother drive away from the residence in, matched the description of the vehicle given by Halliday. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and that the defendant was involved in it. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 230.) Nothing more is required.

At some point after the initial detention of the vehicle, defendant and the other two occupants were transported to the police station for questioning. Once there, defendant was advised of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), and

Page 5