Opinion .
Defendant Wayne Conway was convicted by jury of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The trial court found true the allegations that he had been convicted previously of two serious felonies (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)) and had served prison terms for five felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 21 years for the burglary and enhancements.
In the published portion of this opinion, we reject defendant’s claim that his detention “was predicated upon nothing more than a ‘hunch’ ” and, thus, the trial court should havе granted his motion to suppress evidence as the product of an illegal detention. As we shall explain, the circumstances presented to the patrol officer responding to the report of a burglary in progress justified a vehicle stop and detention of defendant and his companion for the purpose of investigating their pоssible involvement in the burglary.
In the unpublished part of our opinion, we disagree with defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in imposing a $4,200 restitution fine. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
Discussion
I
David McBride lives on Sawtelle Way in Sacramento County. Sawtelle is an “L”-shaped street which is connected to the main thoroughfare, La Riviera Drive, by Waterton Way.
On Oсtober 15,1992, McBride got up shortly before 3 a.m. to go to work. He looked out the bedroom window and saw his garage door was open. Two men were leaving the garage; one was dark and one was White, and each wore distinctive clothing. They were carrying tools and fishing poles. McBride woke up his wife, told her to call the police, and said he was going in pursuit of the burglars. In the front yard of a home four houses away, McBride found his tools.
*388 After awakening his neighbor and telling him about the stolen items on the front lawn, McBride ran to the turn in Sawtelle Way and observed a small Chevrolet drive by. McBride recognized the men inside the car. They were the culprits who had burglarized his garage. McBride yelled for the cаr to stop, but it kept going. When the car got to the corner of Sawtelle and Waterton, it was pursued by a patrol car. McBride ran to La Riviera Drive and saw the Chevrolеt had been stopped by a patrol officer. McBride told the officer not to let the occupants go because they had taken property from his garage. McBride observed his radio/cassette player in the back of the Chevrolet.
Deputy Sheriff Donald Judd was on patrol about a quarter of a mile away at Folsom Boulеvard and La Riviera Drive when he received a dispatch of a burglary in progress on Sawtelle Way. Judd was familiar with the area as he patrolled it several times eaсh night. He proceeded down La Riviera Drive to Waterton Way. As he was turning onto Waterton, he saw a brown compact car coming off Sawtelle onto Waterton. There was no other traffic, and he did not see anyone on foot in the area. Inside the brown car were an older Black male and a young White male. Officer Judd made а U-turn and followed the vehicle, which was in poor condition and sputtered as it went. When it crossed La Riviera Drive, Judd activated his lights. The car stopped, and defendant and his сompanion got out quickly.
The stop occurred less than two minutes from the time Officer Judd had received the burglary dispatch. The dispatch had not mentioned a car and hаd not given any description of the suspects. All Judd knew was that two suspects had been seen in a garage. He pulled over defendant’s vehicle because it was the only car on the street and was leaving the immediate area of a reported burglary. Judd intended to identify the occupants of the car and have the burglary victim look at thеm.
To justify an investigative stop or detention, the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts which, viewed objectively, would cause a reasonable officer to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to ocсur, and (2) the person the officer intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity.
(In re Tony C.
(1978)
Defendant contends he was detained illegally by Officer Judd. According to defendant, Judd acted upon a mere hunch and lacked facts which would give rise to а reasonable suspicion that defendant had been involved in any criminal activity. He claims the facts of this case are similar to those of Tony C., supra.
In Tony C., an officer stoppеd two Black youths walking in a residential area one Tuesday around noon. He knew that several burglaries had occurred recently in the area and that the suspects were three male Blacks. The California Supreme Court held the detention was unlawful, concluding: there was nothing inherently suspicious about two school-age children walking in a residential area during the noon hour on a school day; the reports of burglaries in the area were not sufficient to support the intrusion; the description of the burglary suspеcts was too vague to cast suspicion on Tony and his companion, and nothing in the behavior of Tony and his companion suggested they might be involved in criminal activity; hencе, viewed alone or together, the circumstances did not support a reasonable suspicion that the two youths were involved in any criminal activity. (21 Cal.3d at pp. 897-898.)
We find this case more akin to
People
v.
Lloyd, supra,
*390
Here, Officer Judd had no description of the suspects and did not know if they had a car. However, the information he received about criminal activity was very current. Less than two minutes after receiving the report оf a burglary in progress, he saw a car leaving the area of the reported burglary. The time was approximately 3 a.m., and the officer saw no one else in the area. Under the circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for the officer to suspect the car’s occupants were involved in the burglary. (Cf.
People
v.
Lloyd, supra,
4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 733-734;
People
v.
McCluskey
(1981)
We recognize that driving in a residential area early in the morning is consistent with lawful activity. “But the possibility that the circumstances are consistent with lawful activity does not render a detention invalid, where the circumstances also raise a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances; indeed the principal function of the investigative stop is to resolve that ambiguity.”
(People
v.
Dolliver
(1986)
Since Officer Judd acted in an objectively reasonable manner in stopping and dеtaining defendant for investigation, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence.
II *
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
Puglia, P. J„ and Sims, J„ concurred.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 7, 1994.
Notes
See footnote, ante, page 385.