are designed for a single purpose, Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 750-51, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment), because the “distinctive configuration of [such] co s the degree of privacy that a reasonable person may expect, but it does not eliminate it. If we allow police to open any single-purpose container they lawfully come across we would be authorizing exploratory searches of containers where a reasonable person would rightfully expect privacy: for example, police could open violin cases and guitar bags, look inside cereal boxes and bread baskets, or empty out clothes hampers and jewelry boxes without even a suspicion that these containers hold evidence of a crime. See, e.g., United States v. Donnes, 947 F.2d 1430, 1437 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Hicks was concerned with a statement of the
holding that arrest immediately out side of defendants house violated fourth amendment holding that arrest in backyard violated fourth amendment holding that police violated fourth amendment when they searched camera lens case that produced drugs holding in a  1983 case that city policy that authorized officers to detain people for nonarrestable offenses violated state law and therefore violated the fourth amendment holding that a warrant issued by a judge lacking authority violated defendants fourth amendment rights