Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court therefore did not abuse its discretion in finding that the inventory search was permissible. Further, there is no evidence that the search was a ruse to discover incriminating evidence; searching the locked trunk and backpack furthered the purpose of allowing inventory searches. “[I]nventory procedures serve to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987). The opening and inventory of easily-accessible containers serves both to protect the owner’s property and to insure against false claims. See Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 647-48, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) (<HOLDING>). We overrule appellant’s sixth issue. We 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an officers reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed was sufficient justification for seizure of suspects makeup bag and exigent circumstances justified the subsequent warrantless search of the closed bag (B) holding that the owner of a shoulder bag located on the front seat of his girlfriends car had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag and its contents (C) holding that the opening of a makeup bag was justified when a woman had grabbed the bag when the officer turned away had resisted it being taken from her the bag felt heavy her companion had been armed the previous day and the officer and individual were alone (D) holding that search of shoulder bag was not authorized by search warrant for apartment (E) holding the opening and inventory of a shoulder bag was reasonable despite the possible alternative of securing the bag as a whole
Output (English): holding that search of shoulder bag was not authorized by search warrant for apartment