In United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798, a confidential informant previously found reliable told the police the defendant was selling narcotics from a car parked at a particular location. The informant stated he had seen the defendant complete a sale at a certain location, and the defendant said he had more narcotics in his car trunk. The informant gave the police a detailed physical description of the defendant and described the color and model of his car. (Ross, supra, 456 U.S. at p. 800.) The police found a car matching the informant's description parked at the designated location. The car was registered to the defendant, who fit the physical description given by the informant. The police left the area and then saw a person driving the car who matched the description given by the informant. The police conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle and told the defendant to get out of the car. (Id. at pp. 800-801.) An officer searched the car and found a bullet on the car's front seat and a pistol in the glove compartment. The defendant was then arrested and handcuffed. A detective used the defendant's car keys, opened the trunk, and found a paper bag containing heroin. The police took the car to the police station, conducted a more thorough search, and found a leather pouch in the trunk that contained $ 3,000. The police never obtained a warrant to search the car. (Id. at p. 801.) Ross held the police legitimately conducted the warrantless search because they had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband, based on the information supplied by the confidential informant which was independently corroborated by the police. (Ross, supra, 456 U.S. at pp. 800, 817 & fn. 22.) Such information also provided probable cause to search every part of the vehicle that may have concealed the narcotics. (Id. at pp. 824-825.)The United States Supreme Court clarified restrictions which the Fourth Amendment places on vehicle searches, holding that the permissible scope of a vehicle search is "no greater than a magistrate could have authorized by issuing a warrant based on the probable cause that justified the search." Id. at 818. Thus, compartments and packages within a vehicle which could contain the illicit object for which the police have probable cause to believe exist may also be searched. After an officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, a permissible search of the vehicle is "defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe it may be found." Id. at 824. In United States v. Ross the Supreme Court held: "A lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found and is not limited by the possibility that separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete the search. Thus, a warrant that authorizes an officer to search a home for illegal weapons also provides authority to open closets, chests, drawers, and containers in which the weapon might be found This rule applies equally to all containers, as indeed we believe it must." Id. at 820-822, 102 S.Ct. at 2170-71. Thus, under Ross, any container that is the subject of a validly issued warrant may be searched if it is reasonable to believe that the container could conceal items of the kind portrayed in the warrant.