to be in the position to have such view, does not constitute a search.” State v. Merrill, 252 Neb. 510, 516, 563 N.W.2d 340, 344 (1997). Johansen found the bong lying on the ground while he walked around the accident scene. Johansen acted lawfully in walking around the accident and is therefore not prohibited from seizing recognized contraband. The bong alone may have justified Johansen in continuing an investigation and perhaps given him reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop of Scovill at the truckstop, but, alone, it does not justify a full search. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Probable cause was needed, and the bong alone in these circumstances could not provide it. See, e.g., State v. Brownlie, 149 Or. App. 58, 941 P.2d 1069 (1997) (<HOLDING>). We note however that all of the evidence that
holding that a dispute regarding payment of a restaurant bill does not give rise to probable cause to arrest holding that a search of a students purse that was not based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding that arrest made with probable cause and without excessive force does not give rise to iied claim holding that because marijuana has a distinct smell the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage holding that marijuana pipe alone seen in purse with use of x ray machine at courthouse did not give rise to probable cause to search or arrest