1. The police had probable cause to believe Charlie had a stolen laptop computer in his car. The police stopped Charlie's car and searched it without a warrant. In the trunk, they found the stolen computer. Charlie challenges the search, claiming that the search was illegal for the police did not have a warrant to search his car. Was the search illegal?

2. Boris was involved in a burglary into a jewelry shop. The police had probable cause to believe there were stole rings in Boris's car. The police stopped Boris's car and searched it. In a briefcase on the passenger seat, the police found two bags of cocaine. Boris challenges the search, claiming it was illegal. He argues that the police had no business in opening the briefcase. Was the search of the briefcase illegal?

3. The police had probable cause to believe there was a stolen desktop computer unit in Mike's car. The police stopped Mike's car and searched it. They searched the trunk and the passenger compartment. They found no computer. They then opened the glove compartment and found a gun in it. Mike is charged with illegal possession of a firearm. Mike challenges the evidence, claiming the police search of the glove compartment was illegal. Was the search of the glove compartment illegal?

4. The police had probable cause to arrest Chuck for robbery. The police arrested Chuck in his car. The police handcuffed him and placed him in a police car. They then searched Chuck's car under the doctrine of search incident to arrest. In the glove compartment, the police found rings and watches robbed from the store. According to Arizona v. Gant, could the search be justified under the search incident to arrest?

5. The Court held that in conducting inventory searches there must be predetermined departmental policy as how an inventory search should be conducted and there cannot be individual officers' discretion. Discuss why the Court held this way.