What is the test for denying a motion to suppress a search warrant issued to a parolee who had been stopped at a bus stop by a police officer?

Further, nothing else the officers did gave the impression that defendant was not free to leave. Defendant was not touched, the officers did not brandish their weapons or stand overly close to defendant, and there is no evidence that either their demeanor or tone of voice indicated compulsion. (United States v. Mendenhall, supra, 446 U.S. at p. 554.)

We therefore conclude the encounter was consensual, and as such, no showing of reasonable suspicion was required. "[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. [Citations.]" (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497.)

"If there is no detention no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment then no constitutional rights have been infringed." (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at p. 498.) Because the subsequent search was justifiable based either on defendant's consent or his parole status, the search was also permissible. Thus, we find the trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress.