was the product of an impermissibly suggestive out-of-court lineup that followed (by several months) Bashonga’s review of a photo array. We have examined both the photo array and a videotape of the lineup, and find nothing impermissibly suggestive about either one. See Washington, 12 F.3d at 1134. In particular, we reject Pindell’s contention that the lineup was suggestive because he was assigned the same “number” ]s soon as the agents saw the check stubs, they were justified in believing that they were useful as evidence of a money structuring offense,” even "without removing the rubber bands and inspecting the stubs individually”). 8 . Pindell does not contend that this action constituted an unlawful search. See United States v. Barnes, 909 F.2d 1059, 1069-70 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 9 . We also conclude that the district court
holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person holding that search of shoulder bag was not authorized by search warrant for apartment holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that under a warrant for seizure of cocaine police were authorized to search through notebooks or any other items in which drugs might be concealed holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory purposes