What is the test for determining whether the authorities engaged in an unreasonable search and/or seizure?

Defendant argues a question of statutory interpretation and not of fact. Accordingly, we independently review his argument to determine whether, as a matter of law, the authorities engaged in acts constituting an unreasonable search and/or seizure. (See People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 255, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3.)

In construing statutes, we aim to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislative body so that we may adopt the construction that best effectuates the purpose of the law. [Citations.] We look first to the words of the statute, because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citations.] [] When the statutory text is ambiguous, or it otherwise fails to resolve the question of its intended meaning, courts look to the statute's legislative history and the historical circumstances behind its enactment. [Citation.] Finally, the court may consider the likely effects of a proposed interpretation because [w]here uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] The intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act. (People v. Nelson (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 856.)