Opinion ID: 594189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Pill Bottle and Probable Cause

Text: 23 After looking in the Monte Carlo for its VIN, Stout saw a clear pill bottle containing a white rocky substance which he thought was cocaine. He then seized the bottle and placed the defendants under arrest. 24 Defendants again challenge Stout's expertise in narcotics detection and point to his statement on cross examination that the pill bottle could, in fact, have contained anything. Thus, his observation, they argue, did not constitute probable cause. As the district court noted: 25 [P]robable cause is a flexible, common sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief, that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A practical, nontechnical probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. 26 (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983) (citations omitted)). Viewing the circumstances in their entirety, Stout's initial suspicion that defendants had engaged in a drug transaction rose to the level of probable cause when he saw the bottle and its contents. His seizure of the property and subsequent arrest of the defendants, therefore, was justified. Brown, 460 U.S. at 739 (if, while lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). 27