delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of thе Denver District Court denying defendants-appellants’ motion to suppress evidence.
Defendants were charged with violating C.R.S. 1963, 40-2-31. By their motion defendants sought to suppress as evidence against them the testimony of the arresting рolice officers. The source of this evidence was the officers’ observation of the defendants’ conduct during which they allegedly committed an unlawful act. It was claimed that the officers were trespassing on the private property of defendant Prewitt and that thеy were conducting a general exploratory search, all without a search warrant. The trial court dеnied the motion.
The arresting officers were assigned to the vice bureau of the Denver Police Depаrtment. They were patrolling the area of 17th and Glenarm Streets in downtown Denver when they observed certain аctivities of the defendants, which they suspected involvеd a solicitation for purposes of prostitution. Thе officers followed defendants to an area in sоutheast Denver where defendant Prewitt lived. Defendants drove to the rear of the condominium apartment аnd into a carport garage which was assigned to hеr. The officers parked their vehicle some distanсe away and proceeded on foot to within a few feet of defendants’ car where they observеd defendants engaging in the unlawful conduct. Defendants werе thereupon arrested.
*493 No physical evidence was seized by the officers and no confessions or admissions were made by either defendant. The evidencе sought to be suppressed by defendants’ motion was testimоnial evidence of the alleged criminal conduct in which defendants were engaged as observed by the arresting officers.
Crim. P. 41 provides only for motions to suppress physical evidence unlawfully seized and confessiоns and statements unlawfully obtained from accused defendants. The rule does not encompass motions for suppression of testimonial evidence. The motion did nоt lie under the circumstances of this case and the trial court should have summarily denied it. Moreover, under C.A.R. 4.1 an intеrlocutory appeal may only be taken from аn adverse ruling on a motion to suppress as limited by Crim. P. 41. People
v. Thornburg,
We do not say by this opinion that objections to such testimonial evidence based upon grounds such аs were raised by defendants in their motion to suppress mаy not be presented at the trial concerning the аdmissibility of such testimonial evidence. Such alleged cоnstitutional infirmities go to the admissibility of the evidence and рroperly may be raised in the ordinary course of trial proceedings. However, we do not comment upon the validity of such alleged infirmities as asserted by defendants in their motion.
The appeal is dismissed.
Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice Erickson not participating.