How has the court treated a motion to suppress evidence used in a search and seizure case?

People v. Washington (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1120, 236 Cal.Rptr. 840, which is relied upon by defendant, is distinguishable. There, the defendant was seen from the street standing in a courtyard talking in a huddle with several other men. Although it was night, police officers could see hand movement inside the huddle. However, they were unable to see what was in [216 Cal.App.3d 1451] the hands of the members of the group. As the officers approached, the members of the group looked at them and quickly dispersed. Defendant was selected at random and followed for less than a block. One of the officers called out to him, and defendant responded by asking if it was him that they wanted. When they responded affirmatively, he ran. He was caught a short distance later after being seen dropping a plastic bag. The bag was found to contain contraband. (Id. at pp. 1122-1123, 236 Cal.Rptr. 840.) The defendant's motion to suppress was denied.

On appeal, the defendant argued the police did not have sufficient facts to warrant a lawful detention or investigative stop. (People v. Washington, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1123, 236 Cal.Rptr. 840.) The court agreed, first finding that a detention took place when the officers chased defendant, making it clear he was not free to

Page 557