therefore, he thought there might be a (“[W]e fail to under stand how the purse remained a threat to officers when it had been taken away from its owner.”). ¶ 13 Our supreme court recently made a similar determination when it held that even a warrantless search of a defendant’s vehicle incident to his arrest, a normally justified exception to the warrant requirement, did not apply when “based on the totality of the circumstances, an arrestee is secured and thus presents no reasonable risk to officer safety or the preservation of evidence.” Gant, 216 Ariz. at 7, ¶ 23, 162 P.3d at 646. In such cases, “a search warrant must be obtained unless some other exception to the warrant requirement applies.” Id.; cf. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 15, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by California v.
holding that warrantless administration of fsts in nonalcohol controlled substance intoxication context was justified by the exigency exception holding that an officer may not continue her search once she has determined that no exigency exists holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding that once federal agents had exclusive control of a footlocker its warrantless search could not be justified by any other exigency holding that while a mother could consent to a search of her sons room she did not have authority to consent to a search of a locked footlocker within the room