Under the applicable standard of review, the Court determines that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence. "'The standard of appellate review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. The Court defers to the trial court's factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence.'" (People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 719.) "If there is conflicting testimony, the Court must accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, its evaluations of credibility, and the version of events most favorable to the People, to the extent the record supports them. " (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 342.) "'In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment. ' " (People v. Redd, supra, at p. 719.) In California v. Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, the issue was whether the juvenile, Hodari D., was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (Hodari D., supra, 499 U.S. at p. 623.) Hodari D. was in a group of four or five youths huddled around a car in a high-crime area of Oakland when police officers approached the group in an unmarked car. The youths apparently panicked, fled, and were chased by the officers. Hodari D. did not see an officer until the "officer was almost upon him, whereupon he tossed away what appeared to be a small rock. A moment later, the officer tackled Hodari, handcuffed him, and radioed for assistance." (Ibid.) The Supreme Court stated in Hodari D. that "the narrow question before us is whether, with respect to a show of authority as with respect to application of physical force, a seizure occurs even though the subject does not yield. We hold that it does not." (Hodari D., supra, 499 U.S. at p. 626.) The court explained that "assuming that the officer's pursuit in the present case constituted a 'show of authority' enjoining Hodari to halt, since Hodari did not comply with that injunction he was not seized until he was tackled. The cocaine abandoned while he was running was in this case not the fruit of a seizure, and his motion to exclude evidence of it was properly denied." (Id. at p. 629.)