Rege

HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J.

Following the trial court's partial denial of her motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant Alison June Rege entered a plea of guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Defendant now challenges the partial denial of her motion to suppress. We find no error, and we affirm.

On June 25, 2003, John Roe, a deputy with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, received information from a citizen informant that a woman named Alison was selling methamphetamine from a motel room in Victorville. The informant provided a description of Alison and stated that she drove a brown Honda Accord.

Roe went to the motel where he saw a brown Honda in the parking lot. His license check on the Honda showed that it was registered to defendant, and he learned that defendant had an outstanding warrant for her arrest. The motel manager told Roe that defendant was staying in room 220 at the motel, and the manager gave Roe a master key.

Roe and other officers repeatedly knocked on the door, identified themselves as deputy sheriffs, told defendant they had a warrant for her arrest, and demanded that she…

INTRODUCTION

Following the trial court’s partial denial of her motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant Alison June Rege entered a plea of guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Defendant now challenges the partial denial of her motion to suppress. We find no error, and we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2003, John Roe, a deputy with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, received information from a citizen informant that a woman named Alison was selling methamphetamine from a motel room in Victorville. The informant provided a description of Alison and stated that she drove a brown Honda Accord.

Roe went to the motel where he saw a brown Honda in the parking lot. His license check on the Honda showed that it was registered to defendant, and he learned that defendant had an outstanding warrant for her arrest. The motel manager told Roe that defendant was staying in room 220 at the motel, and the manager gave Roe a master key.

Roe and other officers repeatedly knocked on the door, identified themselves as deputy sheriffs, told defendant they had a warrant for her…

I dissent. I agree with the majority opinion that federal constitutional standards, as expressed in Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752, 763 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 685 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 ], govern appellate review of search and seizure issues. Furthermore, I agree a deferential standard of review applies to the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence. (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 255 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 1 P.3d 3 ].) I depart from the majority holding to the extent it concludes substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling denying defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from under the motel mattress on the grounds it was within her immediate control at the time of her arrest.

The Fourth Amendment bars the admission of evidence seized during an unlawful search. A search is limited in scope to the area within the suspect’s “ ‘immediate control’—construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” (Chimel v. California, supra, 395 U.S. at pp. 762-763.) In deciding “whether a warrantless search incident to an arrest exceeded constitutional bounds, a court must ask; was the area…