a prior drug delivery. Pascual was then found in a car matching the informant’s description not far from the drug transaction. Although Pascual was alone in the car, the agents observed multiple cell phones and two purses in p arch (which included the search of containers inside the car and the trunk) and its timing (two hours after Pas-cual’s arrest) exceeded what is permitted by the automobile exception. Under that exception, “[t]he police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.” California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991). “If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle a ir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Third, Pascual argues that the case must be
holding that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle solely because the vehicle drove onto a lot after hours and then left in a hurry holding that delay of several hours after the vehicle was seized was reasonable holding that a twoday delay was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference and citing cases where no deliberate indifference was found after a sixteenday delay a sixday delay and a threemonth delay holding that due process was not violated in a twentyseven day delay in holding a hearing after an illegally parked vehicle was towed holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable