required him to remain for the warrant check. We therefore conclude that trial court erred in suppressing the evidence on this basis. However, we turn briefly to address the defendant's additional contention. The defendant argues to us that he did not consent to the search of his pockets. C.A.R. 4.1 provides an appeal for the prosecution rather than for the defendant. See C.A.R. 4.1(a) ("The state may file an interloc utory appeal in the supreme court from a ruling of a district court granting a motion . made in advance of trial by the defendant ... to suppress evidence ...."); see also section 16-12-102(2), CRS. (2008). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to address an issue the trial court resolved in favor of the prosecution. See People v. Gothard, 185 P.3d 180, 183 (Colo.2008) (<HOLDING>); People v. Reyes, 956 P.2d 1254, 1256
holding that issues resolved in favor of the prosecution cannot be considered on the prosecutions interlocutory appeal from an order granting the defendants suppression motion holding an interlocutory appeal is allowed from the trial courts written order denying a motion to dismiss under the tcpa holding that a motion to certify a district court order for interlocutory appeal is dispositive holding that notice of appeal from default judgment that was the final order in the case also allowed appellant to raise appellate issues challenging prior interlocutory order dismissing part of case for want of prosecution holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered