allows a warrantless search and seizure of a car so long as the search is justified by probable cause.” United States v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152, 158 (7th Cir. 1987), citing California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386; Chambers v. Moraney, 399 U.S. 42; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132. The exception as applied by the federal courts recognizes both the inherently mobile nature of an automobile and the decreased expectation of privacy that an individual has in a car. See also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 153-54 (1978) (Powell, J. concurring) ("Nothing is better established in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence than the distinction between one’s expectation of privacy in an automobile and one’s expectation when in other locations.”); United States v. Bagley, 765 F.2d 836, 844 (9th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>). Federal law appears resolved that if the
holding the odor of burnt marihuana standing alone provided  peace offieers with the requisite probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendants vehicle holding that probable cause alone justifies a warrantless search or seizure of a vehicle lawfully parked in a public place holding that if a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant holding that the legitimate search and seizure of one suspect in a public place cannot be bootstrapped into probable cause for a broadbase search of the business establishment and its patrons holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same