Contreras

MEMORANDUM **

Froylan Contreras appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the contraband at issue inevitably would have been discovered, we affirm.

“We review de novo motions to suppress, and any factual findings made at the suppression hearing for clear error.” United States v. Negrete-Gonzales, 966 F.2d 1277, 1282 (9th Cir.1992). “[IJnevitable discovery rulings are mixed questions [of law and fact] that ... should be reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir.1998).

In appealing the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, Contreras challenges the district court’s conclusions that (1) the search of the car Contreras was driving prior to his arrest was proper under the Fourth Amendment, and (2) the contraband discovered during that search inevitably would have been discovered when police impounded the car from the shoulder of the freeway and inventoried its contents.

We hold that the search of Contreras’ car violated the Fourth Amendment because Contreras was not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at *265…