Dedrick

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Arthur Dedrick pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1), 924(a)(2). He appeals the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence resulting from the search of his backpack. On de novo review, we affirm.

Defendant argues that the search of his backpack was not justified by a need to protect the officers’ safety or to preserve evidence, the rationales underlying Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). However, the test for determining the validity of a search incident to arrest does not require the government to show that either of those criteria is met. Instead, the test is (1) whether the area or item to be searched is under the arrestee’s immediate control at the time of the arrest, and (2) whether events between the time of the arrest and the search render the search unreasonable. United States v. Nohara, 3 F.3d 1239,1243 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Tarazon, 989 F.2d 1045,1051 (9th Cir.1993).

Here, the backpack was under Defendant’s immediate control; it was draped over his shoulder when he was stopped and was resting next to him when he was ordered to the ground. The fact…