than $1,000 in currency in Black’s bedroom, several guns in various parts of the house, and a pan, measuring cup, and plastic bags — all with traces of white residue — in the kitchen. Ms. Black also testified at the suppression hearing, and although she insisted that she executed the written consent only after the search ended and in fact had told the officers they could look only in Black’s bedroom, the district court found the two police officers more credible. As counsel correctly notes, the district court’s conclusion that authorities had probable cause to arrest Black when they first encountered him at the restaurant is unassailable. Probable cause exists when “the totality of the circumstances, viewed in a common sense manner, reveals a probability or substantial chance Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Black’s arrest and the search incident
holding probable cause exists based upon information received from a reliable eyewitness holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence holding that eyewitness accounts and an officers observations established probable cause holding that a probable cause determination must be viewed in light of the observations knowledge and training of the law enforcement officers involved in the warrantless search holding field sobriety tests are not mandatory as they merely are an aide to an officers other observations in determining whether he has probable cause for an arrest