The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Alright guys, this question comes from an officer from Florida and basically the idea is the Carroll doctrine. Concerning passenger's property. Let me kind of read a little bit about about about the background for my email, give you some flavor what's going on. Alright, so officer in Florida had a traffic stop, right? For expired registration, now made contact with the driver and the passenger, who are both not the registered owners of the vehicle. The driver provided an expired with his license but learned later that it was suspended. The passenger provided an ER name, but no license and is also making it clear that they cannot search nobody can search her stuff, nor the car. Now she has a warrant, but we learned later that the warrant is not extra but extraditable about where they're at. So it's not going to be executable. Alright, so while hold on me. All right, there also the tag attached. The vehicle was not assigned to the tag on the license plate is not assigned to the vehicle. So there's all kinds of things going on. There's no canine available. Now the vehicle is inventorying for towing in plain view on the driver's side floor was a crack pipe, and then plain view. When the doors open open, we also see a US needle in the storage compartment, a book bag that the driver was holding. My first approach was searched, drug paraphernalia were found in some cocaine, the driver was charged appropriately. Now what we're going to be talking about here is what about the passenger? Right? The passenger also has some property. And can that now the passenger admits that hold on the passenger Okay, he's the pastor saying, hey, you know, the needle can't be the drivers because he's snorts his cocaine doesn't shoot a needle. But apparently, she admits that she uses needles. Right. But also, the needles might belong to the owner of the car. So the question is, could the passenger's purse be searched? Under the Carol doctrine, the motor vehicle exception is based on the totality of circumstances, alright. Hope you got a flavor what's what's kind of going on? But alright, so here's the deal. Okay. So, generally speaking, the passengers items fall under the Carol doctrine. So passengers don't fall under the Carol doctrine like passengers are not searchable under the motor vehicle exception. Instead, you have to have probable cause as to them whether you have probable cause here; that's not the question the COP is asking. So I won't address it. But we do know, from a case, I think it's called Wyoming versus hufton. Maybe not be saying that correctly. But it's Wyoming versus the US Supreme Court. And the US Supreme Court stated that if police have probable cause for the car, that they can also search those areas where they reasonably believe more evidence could be found. Well, okay, that's the question for us here. Do we believe that more evidence of the drugs could be found in the passengers? Purse? And I believe the answer is yes. But the way that you answer this question is another case. So we know that passenger stuffs our belongings are fair game if you have probable cause. Well, that brings us to another case called us versus Ross. And they're the US Supreme Court says that you search a car in the same manner as if you had a warrant. My question for you then is this. Do you think, based on the circumstances that the cop if he or she wanted to, can go get a warrant for the car in

for the purse? If the answer is yes, then you search the car, you search the purse? If the COP is unsure, then you probably shouldn't search the purse because you don't have your probable cause. In other words, what would you articulate? Is that make sense? That's kind of what we're looking at here...