Unpublished Disposition, 875 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Following the district court's denial of their motions to suppress, Mayer, Ketaner, and Gomes pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana. They now appeal their convictions, arguing, inter alia, that the government lacked sufficient probable cause to justify the warrantless searches of their automobiles. We review de novo a district court's finding of probable cause and its determination of the legality of warrantless searches, United States v. Linn, 862 F.2d 735, 739-40 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The fourth amendment to the Constitution requires the police to obtain a warrant before searching one's property. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Among the various exceptions to this search warrant requirement is the so-called "automobile exception," which holds that, so long as the police have probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle, they may conduct the search of the vehicle and its contents without first obtaining a search warrant. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 (1982); United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1988). This exception does not apply, however, where an investigation focuses not on an automobile or its general contents, but rather on a particular container which is subsequently placed in an automobile. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1977); United States v. Salazar, 805 F.2d 1394, 1397-98 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, the uncontroverted facts are that a reliable informant gave detailed information to investigators concerning a marijuana smuggling operation, information which was only fully corroborated when the plane piloted by the informant touched down where and when he said it would. Although the investigators were able to observe that the airplane's contents were being quickly transferred to two waiting vehicles, their distance from the landing strip and the nature of the surrounding vegetation precluded them from identifying those contents, much less any particular containers, be they bags, bales, or bundles of marijuana. Under these facts, in which the police clearly had probable cause to stop the vehicles and arrest their drivers, but had neither observed nor focused their investigation on any "specific closed container believed to contain contraband," see United States v. Klein, 860 F.2d 1489, 1494 (9th Cir. 1988), we agree with the district court's conclusion that the "automobile exception" line of authority governs this case.¹  See United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1985) (authorities' failure to observe and identify specific marijuana containers transferred from airplanes to waiting vehicles meant that probable cause to stop vehicles and arrest drivers permitted warrantless searches of automobiles; distinguishing both Ross and Chadwick) .

AFFIRMED.