In People v. Medina (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 171, at approximately midnight, on Olympic Boulevard at Alvarado Street in Los Angeles, the officers had stopped the defendant for driving with a broken tail light. After the defendant got out of the car, the officers had him face an adjacent wall with his hands at the back of his head. The officer testified at the hearing that there was nothing specific that made him believe that the 49-year-old defendant was armed. The pat down search was conducted as a matter of standard procedure. (Medina, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) Also, the officer had decided to conduct the pat down search for weapons because they were in a "'high-gang location.'" (Id. at p. 175.) The officer commenced the search by grabbing the defendant's hands and asking the defendant whether he had any weapons, sharp objects, or "'anything the officer should know of prior to the search.'" (Id. at pp. 175-176.) The defendant replied that he had a "'rock'" in his pants. (Ibid.) The officer retrieved a rock of base cocaine from the defendant's pocket. During the hearing, the People made the same argument they make here: the search was reasonable, and the defendant was not searched until he revealed that he had a rock in his pocket. The court in Medina pointed out that a stop effected for a minor traffic violation does not reasonably suggest the presence of weapons, and a police officer may not conduct a pat down search unless there are objective circumstances indicating that the person is armed and dangerous. (Medina, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 177.) The time and location of the stop are insufficient by themselves to cast reasonable suspicion on a person and to justify the search. (Id. at pp. 177-178.) The Medina court explained that as the officer had decided to restrain the defendant's hands and search the defendant based solely on his presence in a high crime area at night, the detention (the seizing of the hands) and the seizure were unlawful. (Medina, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 178.) The court then addressed issues of attenuation. It concluded that the defendant's statement could not be deemed an intervening independent act that broke the causal chain flowing from the prior illegality. (Medina, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 178.) Moreover, the officer's inquiry suggested that his search would not be limited to a pat down as the officer asked whether the defendant possessed "'anything the officer should know of prior to the search.'" (Id. at p. 178.) Thus, the defendant cannot be faulted for revealing what he believed inevitably would be discovered. And, the officer's question was asked after the grasping of the hands. Detainees are under no obligation generally to reply to an officer's inquiries. (Id. at p. 179.) But the circumstances were deemed to be coercive, and the defendant's reply was not spontaneous. The court determined in the circumstances that the admission was obtained through the exploitation of the illegality, and the admission, as well as the seizure, should be suppressed. (Ibid.)