should have been suppressed by the district court. The judgment of conviction is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED. 1 . Although the transcript of the audio record ing that Officer Patterson made during this exchange does not reflect that Officer Patterson asked a follow-up to the "yes, no, maybe” question, the district court found that the audio recording device may have been inadvertently switched off during part of the conversation, and credited Officer Patterson's testimony that he did obtain consent by next asking that Patzer answer "yes” or “no.” For the reasons discussed below, the Court need not determine whether that finding was clearly erroneous. 2 . United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2001). 3 . Id. 4 . 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Idaho Code § 18-8004(5). 6 . See State v.
holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that a lawful custodial arrest is a prerequisite to a search since the arrest is the authority of law justifying the search holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest recognizing that a search incident to a lawful arrest permits a law enforcement officer to conduct a warrantless search of a container located in the area of the arrestees immediate control