Initially, there is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations regarding the suppression ruling and the three fact-finding determinations challenged on appeal. Given the testimony credited by the court, we conclude that appellant's suppression motion was properly denied, and that the fact-finding determinations were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson,
Let's get started

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.