What is the legal test for a motion to suppress, and what is the test for the Fourth Amendment?

As to the Fourth Amendment claim, [i]n ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court must find the historical facts, select the rule of law, and apply it to the facts in order to determine whether the law as applied has been violated. [Citation.] We review the court's resolution of the factual inquiry under the deferential substantial evidence standard. The ruling on whether the applicable law applies to the facts is a mixed question of law and fact that is subject to independent review. (People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 505, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 575, 101 P.3d 478.)

A person is seized by the police and thus entitled to challenge the government's action under the Fourth Amendment when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority terminates or restrains his freedom of movement, [citations], through means intentionally applied, [citation]. (Brendlin v. California (2007) 551 U.S. 249, 254, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132.) When the actions of the police do not show an unambiguous intent to restrain or when an individual's submission to a show of governmental authority takes the form of passive acquiescence, the test for determining if a seizure occurred is whether, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave,

[186 Cal.Rptr.3d 813]