In People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410, a closed, zippered tote bag was found in the trunk of a car seized incident to the arrest of its occupants. While the defendant was in the police station, the car trunk lock was picked in the city yard by police who thought the second suspect might be hiding therein. The Supreme Court applied United States v. Chadwick (1977) directly and used a case like the one at hand as an example: "It is clear from Chadwick itself that the tote bag would not have been subject to a warrantless search if appellant had been arrested on the street and the bag taken from his possession. The government had also contended in Chadwick that any property in the possession of one who is arrested is subject to a warrantless search. In rejecting this contention the Supreme Court stated that 'warrantless searches of luggage or other property seized at the time of an arrest cannot be justified as incident to that arrest either if the "search is remote in time or place from the arrest," , or no exigency exists. Once law enforcement officers have reduced luggage or other personal property not immediately associated with the person of the arrestee to their exclusive control, and there is no longer any danger that the arrestee might gain access to the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence, a search of that property is no longer an incident of the arrest.'" ( People v. Minjares, supra, 24 Cal.3d at pp. 419-420.)