Although that bottle was broken, the officers found at appellant's feet several open bottles of beer and five unopen bottles in a carton. Officer Womack smelled the odor of alcohol as he talked to appellant. This evidence was sufficient to give the officers probable cause to arrest appellant for drinking alcohol in public. The officers' failure to cite appellant for that offense and the Commonwealth's failure to provide evidence to support a conviction for that offense are not dispositive factors because probable cause deals with probabilities rather than certainties. In addition, the officers' subjective motivations in searching appellant are not relevant in this case.
Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.
Despite appellant's argument to the contrary, we hold that Code 19.2-74 does not delimit the officers' constitutional authority to search. Upon the giving of such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, the officer shall forthwith release him from custody. However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer may proceed according to the provisions of 19.2-82. In addition, that code section contains no language nullifying the officer's ability to search based on the existence of probable cause. We hold that the existence of probable cause to arrest pursuant to the Constitution is both necessary and sufficient.