Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000). “The defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case based upon a legally valid claim.” Id. While mere conclusory allegations are not sufficient to meet this burden, the reviewing court must accept the factual allegations made by the defendant to the extent that they are not refuted by the record. Id. “We must examine each claim to determine if it is legally sufficient, and, if so, determine whether or not the claim is refuted by the record.” Id. Although the police were authorized to search Pugh incident to arrest, it may not have been proper for the officers to extend that search to the trunk of the vehicle, in which case a motion to suppress could have been successful. See Betz v. State, 793 So.2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA) (<HOLDING>), review granted, 791 So.2d 1101 (Fla.2001); 
 Holding statements: (A) holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle (B) holding that defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money (C) holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not (D) holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle (E) holding that search of golf bag was not legal as search incident to arrest because it was not in passenger compartment of vehicle or otherwise within arrestees immediate control
Output (English): holding that search of golf bag was not legal as search incident to arrest because it was not in passenger compartment of vehicle or otherwise within arrestees immediate control