but was unable to produce a driver’s license. During this exchange, Detective Hall detected the odor of marijuana coming from the car. A subsequent computer check revealed that Clayborn’s license was suspended. Clayborn was then arrested for driving with a suspended license and a search of the car was performed due to the arrest and smell of marijuana. This search revealed a loaded 9 mm. pistol between the front seats of the car. Because Clayborn was the sole occupant of the vehicle, University City Police Department Policy required the car to be impounded. Pursuant to this policy, a further search of Clay-born’s vehicle, including the trunk, was conducted. This search uncovered several packages of marijuana and live rounds of ammunition. Clayborn cont t. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Detective Hall’s actions did not
holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized holding that it is reasonable to allow a parole officer to conduct a search whenever he reasonably believes that is necessary to perform his duties as long as the search is based on specific facts holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity holding that police are authorized to conduct a search of the entire vehicle after it is impounded as long as standardized procedures are followed and there was a purpose for the investigation other than suspicion of criminal activity holding that when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a probationer who is already subject to a search condition pursuant to his probation agreement is engaged in criminal activity then there is enough likelihood that criminal conduct is occurring that an intrusion on the probationers  privacy interests is reasonable