texas
brown
argued
january
decided
april
fort
worth
police
officer
stopped
respondent
automobile
night
routine
driver
license
checkpoint
asked
license
shined
flashlight
car
saw
opaque
green
party
balloon
knotted
near
tip
fall
respondent
hand
seat
beside
based
experience
drug
offense
arrests
officer
aware
narcotics
frequently
packaged
balloons
respondent
searching
glove
compartment
license
officer
shifted
position
obtain
better
view
noticed
small
plastic
vials
loose
white
powder
open
bag
party
balloons
glove
compartment
respondent
stated
driver
license
possession
complied
officer
request
get
car
officer
picked
green
balloon
seemed
contain
powdery
substance
within
portion
respondent
advised
arrest
inventory
search
car
conducted
items
seized
suppression
hearing
respondent
trial
unlawful
possession
heroin
police
department
chemist
testified
heroin
contained
balloon
seized
officer
narcotics
frequently
packaged
suppression
evidence
denied
respondent
convicted
texas
criminal
appeals
reversed
holding
evidence
suppressed
obtained
violation
fourth
amendment
rejecting
state
contention
plain
view
doctrine
justified
seizure
concluded
coolidge
new
hampshire
doctrine
apply
must
officer
legitimately
position
view
object
also
must
immediately
apparent
police
evidence
thus
officer
know
incriminating
evidence
seized
balloon
held
judgment
reversed
case
remanded
reversed
remanded
justice
rehnquist
joined
chief
justice
justice
white
justice
concluded
police
officer
violate
fourth
amendment
seizing
green
balloon
respondent
automobile
doctrine
provides
grounds
warrantless
seizure
suspicious
item
officer
access
item
prior
justification
fourth
amendment
rule
merely
reflects
application
fourth
amendment
central
requirement
reasonableness
law
governing
seizures
property
officer
initial
stop
respondent
vehicle
valid
actions
shining
flashlight
car
changing
position
see
inside
violate
fourth
amendment
rights
immediately
apparent
language
coolidge
supra
establish
requirement
police
officer
know
certain
items
contraband
evidence
crime
seizure
property
plain
view
involves
invasion
privacy
presumptively
reasonable
assuming
probable
cause
associate
property
criminal
activity
payton
new
york
probable
cause
flexible
standard
merely
requiring
facts
available
officer
warrant
man
reasonable
caution
believe
certain
items
may
contraband
stolen
property
useful
evidence
crime
demand
showing
belief
correct
likely
true
false
view
police
officer
testimony
corroborated
police
department
chemist
common
use
balloons
packaging
narcotics
officer
probable
cause
believe
balloon
contained
illicit
substance
moreover
requirement
doctrine
coolidge
supra
officer
must
discover
incriminating
evidence
inadvertently
without
knowing
advance
location
particular
evidence
intending
seize
use
doctrine
pretext
bar
seizure
pp
justice
powell
joined
justice
blackmun
concurring
judgment
concluded
articulation
coolidge
supra
exception
warrant
clause
requirements
fourth
amendment
dispositive
issue
respondent
conceded
officer
initial
intrusion
lawful
discovery
tiedoff
balloon
inadvertent
observed
course
lawful
inspection
front
seat
area
automobile
probable
cause
must
shown
justify
seizure
existed
light
evidence
balloons
common
containers
carrying
illegal
narcotics
moreover
law
enforcement
officer
may
rely
training
experience
draw
inferences
make
deductions
might
well
elude
untrained
person
pp
justice
stevens
joined
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
concurring
judgment
concluded
plain
view
exception
fourth
amendment
warrant
requirement
officer
warrantless
temporary
seizure
balloon
proper
balloon
contents
used
evidence
state
justify
opening
without
warrant
question
remains
open
state
remand
pp
chris
marshall
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
tim
curry
wilson
stephen
chaney
allan
butcher
argued
cause
respondent
brief
carter
solicitor
general
lee
assistant
attorney
general
jensen
deputy
solicitor
general
frey
joshua
schwartz
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
justice
rehnquist
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
chief
justice
justice
white
justice
joined
respondent
clifford
james
brown
convicted
district
tarrant
county
possession
heroin
violation
state
law
texas
criminal
appeals
reversed
conviction
holding
certain
evidence
suppressed
obtained
violation
fourth
amendment
constitution
rejected
state
contention
plain
view
doctrine
justified
police
seizure
apparent
uncertainty
concerning
scope
applicability
doctrine
granted
certiorari
reverse
judgment
criminal
appeals
summer
evening
june
tom
maples
officer
fort
worth
police
force
assisted
setting
routine
driver
license
checkpoint
east
allen
street
city
shortly
midnight
maples
stopped
automobile
driven
respondent
brown
alone
standing
alongside
driver
window
brown
car
maples
asked
driver
license
roughly
time
maples
shined
flashlight
car
saw
brown
withdraw
right
hand
right
pants
pocket
caught
two
middle
fingers
hand
opaque
green
party
balloon
knotted
inch
tip
brown
let
balloon
fall
seat
beside
leg
reached
across
passenger
seat
opened
glove
compartment
previous
experience
arrests
drug
offenses
maples
testified
aware
narcotics
frequently
packaged
balloons
like
one
brown
hand
saw
balloon
maples
shifted
position
order
obtain
better
view
interior
glove
compartment
noticed
contained
several
small
plastic
vials
quantities
loose
white
powder
open
bag
party
balloons
rummaging
briefly
glove
compartment
brown
told
maples
driver
license
possession
maples
instructed
get
car
stand
rear
brown
complied
following
rear
car
maples
reached
car
picked
green
balloon
seemed
sort
powdery
substance
within
portion
balloon
maples
displayed
balloon
fellow
officer
indicated
understood
situation
two
officers
advised
brown
arrest
also
conducted
inventory
brown
car
discovering
several
plastic
bags
containing
green
leafy
substance
large
bottle
milk
sugar
items
like
balloon
seized
officers
suppression
hearing
conducted
district
police
department
chemist
testified
examined
substance
balloon
seized
maples
determined
heroin
also
testified
narcotics
frequently
packaged
ordinary
party
balloons
criminal
appeals
discussing
fourth
amendment
issue
observed
plain
view
alone
never
enough
justify
warrantless
seizure
evidence
quoting
coolidge
new
hampshire
opinion
stewart
joined
douglas
brennan
marshall
jj
concluded
officer
maples
know
incriminatory
evidence
seized
balloon
emphasis
supplied
quoting
delao
state
tex
crim
app
state
petition
rehearing
three
judges
dissented
stating
view
issue
turns
whether
officer
relying
years
practical
experience
knowledge
commonly
accepted
probable
cause
seize
balloon
plain
view
plain
view
doctrine
generally
invoked
conjunction
fourth
amendment
principles
relating
warrants
probable
cause
search
incident
arrest
rehearse
briefly
better
understood
principles
fourth
amendment
law
amendment
secures
persons
houses
papers
effects
people
unreasonable
searches
seizures
requires
existence
probable
cause
warrant
shall
issue
cases
hold
procedure
way
warrant
preferred
although
wide
range
diverse
situations
recognized
flexible
exceptions
requirement
see
warden
hayden
hot
pursuit
jeffers
exigent
circumstances
ross
automobile
search
chimel
california
robinson
new
york
belton
search
person
surrounding
area
incident
arrest
search
border
functional
equivalent
zap
consent
also
held
permissible
intrusions
less
severe
searches
seizures
without
necessity
warrant
see
terry
ohio
stop
frisk
seizure
questioning
delaware
prouse
roadblock
one
frequently
mentioned
exception
warrant
requirement
coolidge
new
hampshire
supra
plain
view
doctrine
relied
upon
state
case
conceding
green
balloon
seized
officer
maples
clearly
visible
criminal
appeals
held
state
might
avail
plain
view
doctrine
said
plain
view
doctrine
apply
must
officer
legitimately
position
view
object
must
immediately
apparent
police
evidence
immediately
apparent
aspect
central
plain
view
exception
relied
upon
appellant
citation
omitted
case
officer
maples
know
incriminatory
evidence
seized
balloon
coolidge
plurality
observed
important
keep
mind
vast
majority
cases
evidence
seized
police
plain
view
least
moment
seizure
simply
normal
concomitant
search
legal
illegal
question
whether
property
plain
view
police
may
seized
therefore
must
turn
legality
intrusion
enables
perceive
physically
seize
property
question
coolidge
plurality
following
approach
plain
view
characterized
independent
exception
warrant
requirement
least
analytical
perspective
description
may
somewhat
inaccurate
recognized
payton
new
york
rule
objects
weapons
contraband
found
public
place
may
seized
police
without
warrant
seizure
property
plain
view
involves
invasion
privacy
presumptively
reasonable
assuming
probable
cause
associate
property
criminal
activity
different
situation
presented
however
property
open
view
situated
private
premises
access
otherwise
available
seizing
officer
quoting
leasing
cases
indicate
plain
view
provides
grounds
seizure
item
officer
access
object
prior
justification
fourth
amendment
plain
view
perhaps
better
understood
therefore
independent
exception
warrant
clause
simply
extension
whatever
prior
justification
officer
access
object
may
principle
grounded
recognition
police
officer
observed
object
plain
view
owner
remaining
interests
object
merely
possession
ownership
see
coolidge
new
hampshire
supra
white
dissenting
likewise
reflects
fact
requiring
police
obtain
warrant
obtained
perception
contraband
stolen
property
incriminating
evidence
generally
needless
inconvenience
might
involve
danger
police
public
ibid
said
previously
permissibility
particular
law
enforcement
practice
judged
balancing
intrusion
fourth
amendment
interests
promotion
legitimate
governmental
interests
delaware
prouse
light
private
governmental
interests
outlined
decisions
come
reflect
rule
lawfully
engaged
activity
particular
place
police
officers
perceive
suspicious
object
may
seize
immediately
see
marron
importing
lefkowitz
harris
frazier
cupp
rule
merely
reflects
application
fourth
amendment
central
requirement
reasonableness
law
governing
seizures
property
applying
principles
conclude
officer
maples
properly
seized
green
balloon
brown
automobile
criminal
appeals
stated
question
validity
officer
initial
stop
appellant
vehicle
part
license
check
agree
delaware
prouse
supra
likewise
beyond
dispute
maples
action
shining
flashlight
illuminate
interior
brown
car
trenched
upon
right
secured
latter
fourth
amendment
said
lee
use
searchlight
comparable
use
marine
glass
field
glass
prohibited
constitution
numerous
courts
agreed
use
artificial
means
illuminate
darkened
area
simply
constitute
search
thus
triggers
fourth
amendment
protection
likewise
fact
maples
changed
position
bent
angle
see
inside
brown
car
app
irrelevant
fourth
amendment
analysis
general
public
peer
interior
brown
automobile
number
angles
reason
maples
precluded
observing
officer
entirely
visible
private
citizen
legitimate
expectation
privacy
katz
harlan
concurring
smith
maryland
shielding
portion
interior
automobile
may
viewed
outside
vehicle
either
inquisitive
passersby
diligent
police
officers
short
conduct
enabled
maples
observe
interior
brown
car
open
glove
compartment
search
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
thus
dispute
presence
first
three
requirements
held
necessary
coolidge
plurality
invoke
plain
view
doctrine
criminal
appeals
noted
felt
state
case
ran
aground
requirement
incriminating
nature
items
immediately
apparent
police
officer
criminal
appeals
apparently
meant
officer
must
possessed
near
certainty
seizable
nature
items
decisions
since
coolidge
indicate
use
phrase
immediately
apparent
likely
unhappy
choice
words
since
taken
imply
unduly
high
degree
certainty
incriminatory
character
evidence
necessary
application
plain
view
doctrine
colorado
bannister
applied
substance
doctrine
officer
seizure
evidence
automobile
officer
noticed
occupants
automobile
matched
description
persons
suspected
theft
auto
parts
open
glove
compartment
car
similarly
resembled
ones
reported
stolen
held
facts
supplied
officer
probable
cause
therefore
seize
incriminating
items
car
without
warrant
plainly
view
immediately
apparent
language
coolidge
establishing
requirement
police
officer
know
certain
items
contraband
evidence
crime
indeed
colorado
bannister
supra
merely
application
rule
set
forth
payton
new
york
seizure
property
plain
view
involves
invasion
privacy
presumptively
reasonable
assuming
probable
cause
associate
property
criminal
activity
emphasis
added
think
statement
rule
payton
supra
requiring
probable
cause
seizure
ordinary
case
consistent
fourth
amendment
reaffirm
frequently
remarked
probable
cause
flexible
standard
merely
requires
facts
available
officer
warrant
man
reasonable
caution
belief
carroll
certain
items
may
contraband
stolen
property
useful
evidence
crime
demand
showing
belief
correct
likely
true
false
practical
nontechnical
probability
incriminating
evidence
involved
required
brinegar
moreover
observation
cortez
regarding
particularized
suspicion
equally
applicable
requirement
process
deal
hard
certainties
probabilities
long
law
probabilities
articulated
practical
people
formulated
certain
conclusions
human
behavior
jurors
factfinders
permitted
law
enforcement
officers
finally
evidence
thus
collected
must
seen
weighed
terms
library
analysis
scholars
understood
versed
field
law
enforcement
addition
statement
seizure
objects
plain
view
justified
basis
upon
might
seized
immediately
apparent
requirement
initial
intrusion
lawful
requirements
hold
satisfied
coolidge
plurality
also
stated
police
must
discover
incriminating
evidence
inadvertently
say
may
know
advance
location
certain
evidence
intend
seize
relying
doctrine
pretense
whatever
may
final
disposition
inadvertence
element
plain
view
clearly
bar
seizure
circumstances
meeting
maples
brown
give
suggestion
roadblock
pretext
whereby
evidence
narcotics
violation
might
uncovered
plain
view
course
check
driver
licenses
although
officers
doubt
expectation
cars
halted
east
allen
street
part
medium
area
narcotics
traffic
app
contain
narcotics
paraphernalia
indication
record
anything
beyond
generalized
expectation
likewise
indication
maples
reason
believe
particular
object
brown
glove
compartment
elsewhere
automobile
inadvertence
requirement
plain
view
properly
understood
bar
seizure
maples
lawfully
viewed
green
balloon
interior
brown
car
probable
cause
believe
subject
seizure
fourth
amendment
judgment
texas
criminal
appeals
accordingly
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
ordered
joining
justice
rehnquist
plurality
opinion
continue
disagree
views
four
justices
coolidge
new
hampshire
seizures
valid
viewing
inadvertent
purport
endorse
view
opinions
today
footnotes
brown
relies
principally
howard
state
supra
duncan
state
supra
neither
decision
supports
proposition
texas
criminal
appeals
based
decision
upon
state
law
howard
state
argued
doctrine
justified
seizure
closed
translucent
medicine
jar
automobile
criminal
appeals
rejected
claim
relying
coolidge
new
hampshire
supra
stating
state
arguments
squared
interpretation
plain
view
doctrine
also
relied
thomas
state
tex
crim
app
characterized
ollowing
teachings
coolidge
new
hampshire
additional
opinion
state
motion
rehearing
merely
elaborated
upon
application
doctrine
set
forth
original
opinion
similarly
duncan
criminal
appeals
rejected
state
reliance
theory
citing
coolidge
statement
applicable
law
well
nicholas
state
supra
like
decisions
area
nicholas
relied
coolidge
clear
record
us
brown
arrested
criminal
appeals
stated
one
point
opinion
question
propriety
arrest
since
appellant
failed
produce
driver
license
statement
might
read
suggest
brown
arrested
upon
failure
produce
license
instead
point
following
seizure
balloon
car
transcript
suppression
hearing
however
indicates
rather
clearly
brown
formally
arrested
seizure
balloon
app
face
indications
decline
interpret
clause
criminal
appeals
opinion
evidencing
belief
arrest
occurred
prior
seizure
balloon
rather
think
likely
simply
reasoning
brown
arrest
whenever
may
taken
place
justified
failure
produce
driver
license
address
argument
seizure
balloon
justified
new
york
belton
permits
warrantless
searches
passenger
compartment
automobile
incident
arrest
absence
clear
factual
findings
regarding
time
reason
brown
arrested
lower
able
consider
decision
plurality
also
remarked
plain
view
alone
never
enough
justify
warrantless
seizure
evidence
appeared
understand
phrase
impose
independent
limitation
upon
scope
doctrine
articulated
coolidge
context
plurality
used
phrase
however
indicates
merely
rephrasing
conclusion
discussed
order
doctrine
apply
police
officer
must
engaged
lawful
intrusion
must
otherwise
legitimately
occupy
position
affording
plain
view
thus
police
may
perceive
object
executing
search
warrant
may
come
across
item
acting
pursuant
exception
warrant
clause
warden
hayden
terry
ohio
alternatively
police
may
need
justification
fourth
amendment
access
item
property
left
public
place
see
payton
new
york
important
distinguish
plain
view
used
coolidge
justify
seizure
object
officer
mere
observation
item
left
plain
view
whereas
latter
generally
involves
fourth
amendment
search
see
infra
katz
former
generally
implicate
amendment
limitations
upon
seizures
personal
property
information
obtained
result
observation
object
plain
sight
may
basis
probable
cause
reasonable
suspicion
illegal
activity
turn
levels
suspicion
may
cases
see
terry
ohio
supra
ross
justify
police
conduct
affording
access
particular
item
chesher
ocampo
pugh
cert
denied
coplen
cert
denied
lara
johnson
cert
denied
booker
hanahan
people
waits
redd
state
state
chattley
state
vohnoutka
dick
state
crim
app
state
miller
app
albo
state
seizure
balloon
required
warrantless
physical
intrusion
brown
automobile
proper
assuming
remaining
requirements
doctrine
satisfied
ross
need
address
whether
circumstances
degree
suspicion
lower
probable
cause
sufficient
basis
seizure
certain
cases
see
state
king
iowa
santana
cert
denied
bradshaw
cert
denied
north
superior
cal
justice
powell
justice
blackmun
joins
concurring
judgment
concur
judgment
also
agree
much
plurality
opinion
relating
application
case
exception
warrant
clause
join
plurality
opinion
goes
well
beyond
application
exception
read
opinion
appears
accord
less
significance
warrant
clause
fourth
amendment
justified
language
purpose
amendment
dissent
rabinowitz
justice
frankfurter
wrote
eloquently
one
wrench
unreasonable
searches
text
context
historic
content
fourth
amendment
amendment
outlawed
unreasonable
searches
went
define
restricted
authority
even
search
warrant
issued
magistrate
give
framers
said
clarity
gloss
history
search
unreasonable
unless
warrant
authorizes
barring
exceptions
justified
absolute
necessity
case
involves
application
exception
first
addressed
length
plurality
portion
opinion
coolidge
new
hampshire
plurality
today
opinion
never
expressly
adopted
majority
ante
whatever
view
might
coolidge
decided
see
reason
late
date
imply
criticism
articulation
exception
accepted
generally
decade
moreover
seems
unnecessary
cast
doubt
coolidge
case
plurality
formulation
dispositive
question
us
respondent
brown
dispute
officer
maples
initial
intrusion
lawful
brown
also
concedes
discovery
balloon
inadvertent
observed
course
lawful
inspection
front
seat
area
automobile
probable
cause
must
shown
payton
dicta
suggest
see
payton
new
york
think
clear
existed
officer
maples
testified
previously
made
arrest
case
narcotics
carried
balloons
similar
one
issue
officers
told
cases
even
generally
known
balloon
common
container
carrying
illegal
narcotics
recognized
law
enforcement
officer
may
rely
training
experience
draw
inferences
make
deductions
might
well
elude
untrained
person
cortez
advised
innocent
item
commonly
carried
uninflated
balloons
one
officer
maples
seized
accordingly
concur
judgment
consistent
principles
established
prior
decisions
considered
automobile
exception
example
one
clearly
justified
nature
vehicle
see
arkansas
sanders
powell
concurring
see
chesher
irizarry
tolerton
cert
denied
antill
per
curiam
cert
denied
duckett
williams
cert
denied
truitt
pacelli
cert
denied
drew
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
concurring
judgment
texas
criminal
appeals
held
warrantless
seizure
respondent
balloon
justified
doctrine
incriminating
evidence
immediately
apparent
reverses
holding
even
though
contents
balloon
visible
officer
incriminating
evidence
immediately
apparent
probable
cause
believe
balloon
contained
illicit
substance
agree
contraband
need
visible
order
seizure
justified
therefore
concur
conclusion
texas
interpreted
fourth
amendment
strictly
required
plurality
explanation
disposition
case
however
incomplete
gives
inadequate
consideration
cases
holding
closed
container
may
opened
without
warrant
even
container
plain
view
officer
probable
cause
believe
contraband
concealed
within
chadwick
arkansas
sanders
ross
final
determination
whether
trial
properly
denied
suppression
motion
requires
complete
understanding
doctrine
well
answer
factual
inquiry
remains
open
state
remand
although
fourth
amendment
cases
sometimes
refer
indiscriminately
searches
seizures
important
differences
two
relevant
doctrine
amendment
protects
two
different
interests
citizen
interest
retaining
possession
property
interest
maintaining
personal
privacy
seizure
threatens
former
search
latter
matter
timing
seizure
usually
preceded
search
container
involved
converse
often
true
significantly
two
protected
interests
always
present
extent
example
seizure
locked
suitcase
necessarily
compromise
secrecy
contents
search
stopped
vehicle
necessarily
deprive
owner
possession
object
may
considered
plain
view
seized
without
compromising
interest
privacy
since
seizure
object
threatens
interest
possession
circumstances
diminishing
interest
may
justify
exceptions
fourth
amendment
usual
requirements
thus
item
abandoned
neither
fourth
amendment
interest
implicated
neither
probable
cause
warrant
necessary
justify
seizure
see
abel
cf
lisk
officer
probable
cause
believe
publicly
situated
item
associated
criminal
activity
interest
possession
outweighed
risk
item
might
disappear
put
intended
use
warrant
obtained
officer
may
therefore
seize
without
warrant
see
leasing
payton
new
york
plain
view
exception
warrant
requirement
easy
understand
apply
cases
search
made
intrusion
privacy
occurs
difficult
cases
however
regularly
arisen
two
contexts
link
seizure
prior
subsequent
search
first
situation
officer
executing
valid
search
one
item
seizes
different
item
sensitive
danger
inherent
situation
officers
enlarge
specific
authorization
furnished
warrant
exigency
equivalent
general
warrant
rummage
seize
danger
averted
strict
attention
two
core
requirements
plain
view
seizing
item
must
entail
significant
additional
invasion
privacy
time
seizure
officer
must
probable
cause
connect
item
criminal
behavior
see
lefkowitz
cf
coolidge
new
hampshire
second
familiar
context
situation
officer
comes
upon
container
plain
view
wants
seize
examine
contents
recent
years
spoken
length
latter
act
ross
supra
chadwick
supra
sanders
supra
emphasizing
fourth
amendment
privacy
values
implicated
whenever
container
opened
case
however
search
container
balloon
antecedent
seizure
open
challenge
regard
closely
resembles
coolidge
supra
cases
however
demonstrate
constitutionality
container
search
automatically
determined
constitutionality
prior
seizure
see
chadwick
sanders
separate
inquiries
necessary
taking
account
separate
interests
stake
movable
container
plain
view
seizure
implicate
privacy
interests
therefore
probable
cause
believe
contains
contraband
owner
possessory
interest
container
must
yield
society
interest
making
sure
contraband
vanish
time
take
obtain
warrant
item
may
seized
temporarily
follow
however
container
may
opened
spot
container
custody
risk
evidence
destroyed
inconvenience
officer
entailed
requiring
obtain
warrant
opening
container
alone
excuse
duty
go
neutral
magistrate
johnson
mcdonald
justice
powell
emphasizes
ante
warrant
clause
embodies
government
historical
commitment
bear
burden
inconvenience
exigent
circumstances
must
shown
constitution
entrust
individual
privacy
judgment
single
police
officer
case
doubt
concerning
propriety
officer
warrantless
seizure
balloon
reasons
stated
justices
powell
rehnquist
agree
police
officer
invaded
privacy
interest
order
see
balloon
saw
probable
cause
believe
contained
drugs
balloon
contents
used
evidence
respondent
state
also
justify
opening
without
warrant
perceive
two
potential
justifications
first
entirely
possible
officer
saw
car
glove
compartment
coupled
observation
respondent
contents
pockets
provided
probable
cause
believe
contraband
located
somewhere
car
merely
one
balloon
issue
ross
decided
texas
criminal
appeals
reviewed
case
permissible
examine
contents
container
car
including
balloon
alternatively
balloon
one
rare
containers
nature
support
reasonable
expectation
privacy
contents
inferred
outward
appearance
sanders
supra
whereas
suitcase
paper
bag
may
contain
almost
infinite
variety
items
balloon
kind
might
used
transport
drugs
viewing
given
officer
degree
certainty
equivalent
plain
view
heroin
true
conclude
doctrine
supports
search
well
seizure
even
though
contents
balloon
actually
visible
officer
reasoning
leads
conclusion
fourth
amendment
require
exclusion
balloon
contents
case
probable
cause
search
entire
vehicle
virtual
certainty
balloon
contained
controlled
substance
neither
inquiries
made
texas
courts
neither
made
first
instance
moreover
may
remand
texas
criminal
appeals
find
inquiries
unnecessary
respondent
may
waived
right
demand
see
supra
therefore
concur
judgment
defending
texas
criminal
appeals
judgment
respondent
rely
upon
challenge
search
balloon
nevertheless
believe
necessary
elaborate
upon
distinction
balloon
search
seizure
case
order
clarify
hold
today
moreover
clear
whether
matter
texas
law
respondent
still
permitted
present
argument
evidence
suppressed
obtained
search
balloon
see
infra
although
coolidge
always
thought
container
case
required
confront
new
hampshire
separate
attempts
justify
warrantless
seizure
container
immobilized
automobile
see
subsequent
warrantless
searches
container
interior
see
arguably
matter
texas
law
respondent
waived
right
demand
justification
course
issue
texas
courts
conversely
fact
object
visible
automatically
mean
plain
view
sense
invasion
privacy
required
seize
case
require
elaboration
fourth
amendment
demands
officer
may
seize
visible
item
reach
without
example
entering
private
home
destroying
valuable
container
see
taylor
sometimes
greater
certainty
identity
substance
within
container
identity
substance
actually
visible
one
might
actually
see
white
powder
without
realizing
heroin
virtually
certain
balloon
contains
substance
particular
context
seems
evaluating
whether
person
privacy
interests
infringed
virtual
certainty
meaningful
indicator
visibility