their right to appeal the district court’s ruling on their motion to suppress. 2 . Because we hold that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Estrada-Nava and Colin, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we decline to reach the issue of whether the stop was motivated by a programmatic aim to enforce drug and weapons laws. 3 . We have cited only the facts relevant to our disposition of the case. 4 . Carmichael also testified that he thought Estrada-Nava was possibly fatigued or ill. 5 . The court noted that it has been clearly established in California that "weaving from one lane to another justifies an investigatory stop.” Id. 6 . There were no intervening events that purged the illegal taint. See United States v. Sigmond-Ballesteros, 285 F.3d 1117, 1127 (9th Cir.2002)
holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search holding lower court should have suppressed a statement that was obtained to an warrantless arrest made in appellants home holding that consent to search did not purge the taint of an unlawful detention when no intervening circumstances sufficiently separated the consent from the unlawful detention holding that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable where evidence has been obtained by means sufficiently separate from the illegal activity to be free of any taint holding that evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful stop should have been suppressed because there were no intervening events that purged the illegal taint