Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, appellant pleaded guilty to possession of heroin. On appeal, he argued that the magistrate erred by allowing the prosecutor to orally respond to his 1538.5 motion, rather than requiring a timely written response. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the elements of due process are not adversely affected by allowing the prosecution to respond orally. Appellant was afforded a full opportunity to litigate his motion. Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 was not wrongly denied where appellant and his companion immediately fled upon seeing police officers, the officers noticed narcotics sitting on the table from which appellant fled, and officers observed something in appellant’s hand which could have been a weapon. Therefore, the patdown search of appellant was lawful, and the evidence seized was properly admitted.