Alvarez

MEMORANDUM

Alvarez appeals from the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress the evidence seized during a search of his person and a search of his vehicle. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, but the factual findings underlying the denial of such a motion are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gust, 405 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir.2005). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

When police officers make a lawful arrest, a search of the person is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Ruckes, 586 F.3d 713, 717 (9th Cir.2009). Alvarez argues his arrest was unlawful, and that, therefore, any search incident to that arrest was also unlawful. It is true that California law prohibits arresting someone solely for being an unlicensed driver. Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Cal. Veh.Code § 12801.5(e)). Here, however, Alvarez was arrested not for merely driving without a valid license, but for doing so while on parole for a previous offense. The district court was correct that it was reasonable for a police officer to conclude that a condition of…