S.W.2d 585 (Mo.1968), was an arrest for burglary in an apartment, not in a car, and therefore sheds no direct light on the “concrete factual context” of this case. In fact, no case is cited which falls in this category; or which permits a trunk search based upon such a flimsy set of facts. It is important to remember that Carroll “ * * * merely relaxed the requirement for a warrant on the grounds of practicality. It did not dispense with the need for probable cause”. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104, 80 S.Ct. 168, 172, 14 L.Ed. 2d 134; United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 467, 52 S.Ct. 420, 424, 76 L.Ed. 877, 884. Nor can a search be justified by what is uncovered later on; Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 29, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520; State v. Seymour, 438 S. .2d 53 (<HOLDING>); People v. Lewis (1966) 34 Ill.2d 211, 215
holding trunk search was for general exploration not for detaining prisoner or preventing escape holding that an officer had probable cause to search bags in the trunk of the car when he opened the trunk and smelled a strong odor of methamphetamine holding that sniff test of automobile trunk not a search requiring probable cause holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not holding search of trunk unnecessary to protect officers or prevent defendants escape