In a motion to suppress a search of a vehicle by police officers following an arrest, is the search not incident to an arrest?

The defendant argues the officers did not search his vehicle incident to an arrest; he claims they instead searched it based solely on their mistaken belief that he was on probation and subject to a Fourth Amendment waiver. But the testifying officer refuted this claim during the suppression hearing. According to the officer, he searched the vehicle both because he believed (erroneously, as it turns out) that the defendant executed a Fourth Amendment waiver and because the defendant was under arrest for public intoxication. After receiving the officer's testimony, the trial court expressly opined the defendant was "drunk in public" and found the search was incident to an arrest. In urging us to reject these findings and disbelieve the testifying officer, the defendant asks us to reweigh the evidence and substitute our findings for those of the trial court. We decline the defendant's invitation, which runs contrary to well-settled principles of appellate review. ( People v. Lieng (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1218, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ["In reviewing the ruling on a motion to suppress, the appellate court defers to the trial court's factual findings, express or implied, when supported by substantial evidence."].)