Can a defendant argue that the abandonment doctrine does not apply because he was illegally detained?

We do not reach defendant's contention that the "abandonment doctrine" does not apply because he was illegally detained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant has forfeited this argument because he did not raise it below.⁴ In response to the People's argument that the warrantless search was lawful because defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room after it was vacated, defendant did not offer the argument he now raises on appeal. Instead, defendant argued that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the room. Accordingly, defendant has forfeited the issue on appeal. (See People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 130-136 [defendants who do not give the prosecution sufficient notice of the inadequacies in the prosecution's proposed justification for a warrantless search or seizure cannot raise the issue on appeal].)

Page 8

The judgment is affirmed.