In People v. Huerta (1990) 218 cal.app.3d 744, the defendant was detained after he entered a house where a police search was already under way, and drugs had already been discovered. The police asked him to identify himself. The defendant appeared nervous, and was not able to give an explanation for his presence at the house. He gave the police his identification, which did not completely satisfy the officer, who was concerned the defendant might be armed. He pat searched the defendant, and discovered a large bulge in his shirt pocket, which turned out to be a roll of $ 3,100. Upon a request for further identification, the defendant gave an address and phone number. The person who answered the phone told the officer the defendant did not live there, and gave him defendant's number and address. A call to that number reached an answering machine with a recording from someone with defendant's first name. The police still suspected the defendant was trying to hide something, and called the police station to run a warrant check. Because there were too many people in the system with defendant's last name, his warrant status could not be established. These calls took 10 to 15 minutes. (Id. at pp. 746-747.) The officer explained to the defendant that he was concerned about his reason for being at the residence where drugs had been found, especially in light of the large amount of cash he was carrying. He again asked the defendant to be truthful about who he was and why he was there. The defendant then gave his correct address and phone number, and explained that he had additional identification in his pickup truck. He gave the police permission to search his vehicle, where they found another $ 4,550 in cash, which the defendant said he needed for his work in construction. The search of the truck took 5 to 10 minutes. The officers spent another 10 to 15 minutes discussing how to proceed with their investigation. They then asked defendant for his consent to search his residence, which he gave. A search of his residence uncovered methamphetamine, cash, drug paraphernalia, drug transaction records, and weapons. (Huerta, Supra, 218 cal.app.3d at pp. 747-749.) Huerta sought to suppress the evidence, claiming his consent to search his truck and house were the product of an unlawful detention. The court reviewed the police conduct, and determined that they had acted reasonably and with due diligence at every step of the investigation. It held that a detention of 25 to 40 minutes, during which time the police were actively seeking to ascertain the defendant's identity and whether he was involved in illegal activity, was not unduly prolonged. (Huerta, Supra, 218 cal.app.3d at pp. 750-752.)