Opinion ID: 592997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Search was Valid under the Automobile Exception.

Text: 14 Muniz contends that even if his arrest was valid, the subsequent search of his vehicle was not. A warrantless search of an automobile, as well as of any container located within it, is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment if there is probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of criminal conduct. California v. Acevedo, 111 S.Ct. 1982 (1991). We review the trial court's findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Feldman, 788 F.2d 544, 550 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1067 (1987). The trial court made a conclusion of law in this case that the search was a knowing, valid consensual search. 15 Muniz had obtained a small object from Mendez and placed it in the trunk. Then Muniz had driven his car, a Ford Thunderbird, by Mendez with the trunk open. Immediately following this unusual maneuver, both men started driving in a counter-surveillance manner. Though not specifically found, these facts were undisputed. These facts, in combination with the other observations, gave the officers probable cause to believe that Muniz was a drug dealer currently engaged in a drug transaction, and gave the officers probable cause to search the vehicle at the time of the stop. See United States v. Ocampo, 937 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir.1991) (finding a search warrant covering, inter alia, the defendant's cars to have had a substantial basis where the police observed the defendant engage in counter-surveillance driving, tandem driving, a car switch, and the placing of numerous beeper calls). 16 AFFIRMED.