trial court relied on the following facts in making this determination: (1) Marujo was approached by a uniformed, armed police officer and was aware that a second officer was inside the store; (2) Officer Hinton asked Marujo to change his location by stepping toward him; (3) Officer Hinton requested to perform a pat down with no legitimate reason to interview Maryjo; (4) Marujo consented to the pat down with full knowledge that it would reveal the illegal drugs in his pocket; and (5) Margjo is not a native English speaker, and while he is conversant in English, he requires interpretive assistance with technical legal issues. Relying heavily on our opinion in People v. Fines, the court reasoned that the encounter rose to the level of an investigatory stop. See 127 P.3d 79 (Colo.2006) (<HOLDING>). The trial court held that the stop was not
holding that when two penetrations were separated by a short period of time two independent assaults occurred holding that a passenger in a stopped vehicle was seized when she was escorted from the car to the front of two police cars that had their overhead lights turned on separated from the driver by two officers and separated from her purse which remained in the car holding that a passenger has standing to challenge a stops constitutionality because the passenger is seized from the moment a car is stopped holding that car passenger who left her purse in her boyfriends car had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of her purse indeed a purse is a type of container in which a person possesses the highest expectations of privacy holding that passenger of stopped car who fled from police was not guilty of obstruction without violence