What is the test for denying a motion to suppress evidence?

In People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785, this court stated: "In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and defer to its findings of historical fact, whether express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. We then decide for ourselves what legal principles are relevant, independently apply them to the historical facts, and determine as a matter of law whether there has been an unreasonable search and/or seizure. [Citation.]"

California has long recognized that " 'circumstances short of probable cause to make an arrest may still justify an officer's stopping pedestrians or motorists on the streets for questioning.' [Citation.] To protect his safety, the officer may also be justified in requesting a suspect to submit to a superficial search for concealed weapons. [Citation.] The guiding principle in these temporary investigatory stops, as in all Fourth Amendment issues, is 'the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' [Citation.]" (People v. Rivera (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1006, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 785.)