defendant’s backpack would contain equipment necessary to a methamphetamine laboratory.” Again, we disagree. Defendant’s backpack was found in the trunk of the car among items commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine, and defendant had behaved nervously when Dahl began his search of the car. When Dahl called in the narcotics team to complete the search, he already had found the “chemicals” book in defendant’s area of the front seat as well as a bindle apparently containing a controlled substance in the fanny pack defendant was wearing. As a consequence, the searching officers reasonably believed that the backpack contained evidence of one or more crimes, in particular, the manufacture or possession of methamphetamine. See State v. Bingman, 162 Or App 615, 620-21, 986 P2d 676 (1999) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Nevel, 126 Or App 270, 278,
holding that a search of a students purse that was not based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding that probable cause to believe certain individuals were members of a conspiracy did not give probable cause to search the contents of the room in which they were arrested holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime holding that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause