even though police had no surveillance inside retail store where buys occurred and did not fully search untested informant ahead of time); United States v. Artez, 389 F.3d 1106, 1111-12 (10th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases and concluding that “the absence of constant visual contact with the informant conducting the transaction does not render a controlled purchase insufficient, nor does the absence of an audio-recording of the transaction”). In sum, Nicole’s account was sufficiently corroborated to lead a reasonable person to believe that-Miller had sold her crack. Miller’s arrest and the search incident to that arrest were thus lawful, and the district court was correct to deny Miller’s motion to suppress. See Riley v. California, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gary, 790 F.3d 704, 709 (7th
holding that although the automobile exception is based in part on exigence where police have probable cause to search a ear they need not get a search warrant even if they have the time and opportunity holding that evidence obtained from a search made subsequent to an illegal stop was admissible when before the search the police officer discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant and the defendant was thereupon arrested pursuant to that warrant recognizing that police officers generally do not need warrant to search person they have lawfully arrested holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory purposes