Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that other items in the car, including the backpack, contained evidence of a methamphetamine lab. In fact, the evidence permits no other plausible inference. Therefore, the trial court properly determined that the search was supported by subjective probable cause. We turn to the issue of objective probable cause. Defendant argues: “From an objective standpoint, the backpack did not suggest that it contained crime evidence. Dahl testified that the backpack was closed and that he could not see inside the pack to determine its contents. Although defendant had previously been searched incident to his arrest, the only thing found on defendant’s person was a bindle that ‘didn’t appear to have much in it.’ * * * That evidence would not support probable cause to believ 68 P2d 1338 (1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Cromwell, 109 Or App 654, 658, 820 
 Holding statements: (A) holding warrantless search of defendants automobile four days after impoundment was permissible under requirements of fourth amendment and state constitution where officers had probable cause to search vehicle when it was impounded and that probable cause continued between the time of the impoundment and the search (B) holding that officers had probable cause to search the defendants van for drugs where among other facts the defendant had voluntarily retrieved half a gram of methamphetamine from the vehicle and had acted surreptitiously in doing so (C) holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime (D) holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence (E) holding that the protective sweep of a van was lawful where officers stopped the van on reasonable suspicion that the driver had just committed an armed bank robbery and officers could not see inside the van to determine whether other occupants posed a danger to them
Output (English): holding that the protective sweep of a van was lawful where officers stopped the van on reasonable suspicion that the driver had just committed an armed bank robbery and officers could not see inside the van to determine whether other occupants posed a danger to them