purpose identified by the dissent. 10 . A difference is that in the present case the two places are within the same jurisdiction, in fact the same municipality. See footnote 1. 11 . This is despite precedent such as United States v. Carrión, 457 F.2d 200 (9th Cir.1972), in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that evidence that an aircraft landed in Los Angeles with 404 pounds of marihuana, that it had used enough fuel and had enough time to go to Mexico, that the marihuana was in boxes marked in Spanish, and that one of the passengers had a map of Mexico, as well as a match box from a Mexico motel, was not sufficient to establish that the marihuana had been imported from Mexico! 12 . See In re Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U.S. 631, 643, 98 S.Ct. 2053, 2061, 56 L.Ed.2d 591 (1978) (<HOLDING>). 13 . Indeed, the Fourth Amendment issues here
recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result holding that a literal interpretation should not be adhered to when it would lead to absurd results holding that an absurd result militates against a proposed statutory interpretation holding that courts adopt statutes interpretation that is supported by statutes plain language if statute is unambiguous unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result