Third, whether the suspect was required to move from one location to another. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 504 (1983) (moving suspect from one location to another during an investigatory stop, in absence of safety and security reasons, exceeded scope of stop); People v. Mickens, 734 P.2d 646, 649 (Colo.App. 1986); see generally 4 LaFave, supra 9.2(g). Fourth, whether there were alternative, less intrusive means available and "whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize or to pursue [them]."

1997) (comparing Sharpe , 470 U.S. at 683, 105 S.Ct. 1568 (twenty-minute detention was reasonable); with Place , 462 U.S. at 709–10, 103 S.Ct. 2637 (ninety-minute detention of suspect’s luggage was "prolonged" and exceeded scope of stop); and People v. Hazelhurst , 662 P.2d 1081, 1086 (Colo. 1983) (twenty- to thirty-minute detention exceeded scope of stop); and People v. Mickens , 734 P.2d 646, 649 (Colo. App. 1986) (one-and-one-half-hour detention exceeded scope of stop)). In light of abundant existing Fourth Amendment precedent to the contrary, I fail to see how it can realistically be argued that the defendant was not subjected to a de facto arrest and therefore was never under arrest until an arrest was formally announced.

Each officer's testimony was unrebutted regarding defendant's consent to the photography and there is no evidence that he was coerced in any way. Indeed, defendant voluntarily held the clothing while police took the pictures. Hence, the court's finding that defendant voluntarily consented to the photography is supported by the record, and accordingly, we will not disturb it on appeal. See People v. Mickens, 734 P.2d 646 (Colo.App. 1986). The judgment is affirmed.

Because defendant abandoned the gun, he cannot now complain of its seizure by the detectives. See People v. Morrison, 196 Colo. 319, 583 P.2d 924 (1978); People v. Mickens, 734 P.2d 646 (Colo.App. 1986). See also W. Erickson W. Neighbors, United States Supreme Court Cases and Comments, § 1.11(5) (1985).