What is the test for denying a motion to suppress a search during a traffic stop?

We review the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress in the light most favorable to the ruling, deferring to express or implied findings of fact supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 969.) But we independently review the trial court's application of the law to the facts. (Ibid.)

Preliminarily, defendant's contention that his admission to being armed should not be considered because it was elicited during an unduly prolonged stop is forfeited for failure to raise the issue below. (See People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 130 ["if defendants detect a critical gap in the prosecution's proof or a flaw in its legal analysis,

Page 4

they must object on that basis to admission of the evidence or risk forfeiting the issue on appeal"].)

While the record does not show the officer knew defendant was on searchable probation prior to the search, the record does support the trial court's denial of the suppression motion based on a search incident to arrest.² As the trial court noted, in concluding the entirety of the evidence rendered the search and detention lawful, defendant admitted to having a gun and was ultimately arrested. (Cf. People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, 1218 ["When a custodial arrest is made, and that arrest is supported by independent probable cause, a search incident to that custodial arrest may be permitted, even though the formalities of the arrest follow the search"].)