camaro before probable cause attached to arrest mr smith before they arrested him and that's just the type of search that is illegal under the search considering two arrests doctrine officer rack with pet driver's licenses and social security numbers and trying to identify mr smith and he was badgering mr smith and trying to admit who he was why didn't he have probable cause or soon as it became apparent that he was giving a false name to the officer when he learned when they got the radio answer that the name that your client gave the the officers matched a different description physical description of this you know somebody else why wasn't a probable cause right in there to arrest him well i i think that there's not probable cause and you have to get to go to the officer state of mind i'm so no i would not forget the opposite state of mind why isn't there probable cause when the officer learns that the driver of the vehicle has just given him a false identity i think well i think that the that the first time he can first with dispatch is when he's got mr smith out of the car back by the patrol car before he goes to the camaro how humane he gets some information from our dispatch but that is inconclusive isn't there probably cause right then and there to arrest him for giving a false information to the police assuming there is at that point obvious or rachleff has already gone back to the camaro because when he when obvious upright get the information from dispatch the first time the first information from dispatch is inconclusive that's why he goes to the camaro in the first place he comes back the second time he's conferring with mr smith again he's going to try to get more information from dispatch an officer ratliff testifies that immediately upon price's return back to the patrol car where mr smith is standing and he's watching them on a hunch because the whole question is identity ratliff goes to the camaro to search for the identification and he goes into the camaro and he finds it but that search occurs before probable cause returns to the compound search for identification on a hunch and you know he's going there on a hunch because he says that at one forty eight six why do you go back to the camaro and his his answer is just based on the way he was acting and what happened he went back there on a hunch and that's why the california highway patrol violated the fourth amendment in this case i would also argue that the court asked the parties to address the says if the government doesn't really i may have waited but i would also say that there was there was no ruling below and that there is no ruling below that that i ate in the middle of the night that the government would have inevitably discovered this information by the excerpt lines thirteen through page one forty one that immediately upon price returning from the camaro he went to search and he went there because you know well maybe it's in the car i'm going to go to work and he thought that he had the right to do that and he doesn't under the for the me by the case one ad borne out by the officer's actions and self that's why they went to the camaro in the first place to talk with with the told him about mr smith the vernon smith that he had just run the records for and at this time officer ratliff and defendant smith are outside the vehicle outside the patrol unit between the patrol unit and the camaro price was in the car searching for evidence of identity and the case that seems pretty clear that you can not search for it there the evidence that's going to prove the crime for which you are being contemporaneous with the search of a person it doesn't matter whether the search occurs before half of the events as long as it's in close is  high miller a canal that indicated that for the same reasons why officer safety and destruction of evidence the same reasons why we need to search incident to arrest doctrine outside of a vehicle we need one on the inside of a vehicle and i think the cases have exercise discretion well i believe it can but i also think there are more important i think we can look at what happened in alexander and see that these cases are like apples and oranges and alexander there was a decision made by the district court the government sort of motions to occurred my understanding is that the officers once they had found the bill if they're going to arrest him then they have the right to do a search into the arrest of the passenger compartment car for recondite and i what i guess my point is i don't if if you're going to arrest them then they have the right to search the car they would have found the wallet then they would've had the same problem look what you do about the money and then you're off and running again i mean i don't i  s there was a price on inconclusive evidence of identification with this first contact with mr smith at the patrol car he went to confer with the codefendant in the camaro at that time radcliffe was watching mr smith back by the patrol car and when the conversation occurred about what's your identity between smith and radcliffe then price comes back he still has inclusive evidence and he starts conferring with this batch about driver's licenses in arizona california social security radio he would never i would think no california highway patrol officer would let someone if they stopped for speeding or any other crime to sit there on the side of i wrote in the middle of night he went back to his car and his officer was not watching him so i