that "[t]he right to conduct such a search incident to arrest is absolute and not determinative of any concern for officer safety or destruction of evidence,” the district court stated, “[T]he magistrate judge’s reliance on the 'search incident to arrest' exception ... is erroneous and contrary to law. Post-Ganf, the 'search incident to arrest’ exception cannot legitimize a warrantless search in the absence of a need to protect officers and safeguard evidence.” Rather than discussing whether Perdoma was able to access the bag during the search, however, the district court instead found the search valid on an alternate ground, concluding that the officers could reasonably believe that "further evidence of a drug offense would be found in [Perdoma’s] bag.” See Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1719 (<HOLDING>). We read the district court’s memorandum and
holding that the vehicle of a recent occupant may be searched incident to arrest as an exception to the warrant requirement where it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest holding that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle  quoting thornton v united states 541 us 615 632 124 sct 2127 158 led2d 905 2004 scalia x concurring holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that the rule announced in crawford v washington 541 us 36 124 sct 1354 158 led2d 177 2004 applies retroactively on collateral review