The Court's plurality opinion also considered "Robbins v. California", 453 U.S. 420 (1981), a case which bore more similarity to the "Ross" case. In that case, police pulled over a car smelling marijuana smoke, and proceeded to search the car. In the trunk they found two packages wrapped in opaque plastic, which they unwrapped, discovering marijuana inside. The Court ruled that the warrantless search of the vehicle was legal, but the warrantless search of the two packages found within was unconstitutional. The court in the Ross case rejected the Robbins finding. Justice Stevens suggests that the parties in the Robbins case had not presented the appropriate arguments that would allow the court to fully consider the issue. Stevens goes on to declare that the Ross case allows for the "thorough consideration of the basic principles in this troubled area." Chief Justice Burger and Justice Powell, who had sided with the plurality in "Robbins" which declared that search unconstitutional, sided with the plurality in "Ross" which declared the search constitutional, effectively negating "Robbins". Justice Stewart, who had written the plurality opinion in "Robbins", had retired and was replaced by Justice O'Connor, who sided with the plurality in "Ross".