Whether the officer conducted a valid inventory search of a closed container without a written policy governing such searches

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. IN THIS CASE, THE OFFICER CONDUCTED INVENTORY SEARCH OF A CLOSED CONTAINER WITHOUT A WRITTEN POLICY GOVERNING THE SEARCH OF SUCH CONTAINERS. WHETHER THIS SHOULD GRANT THE WRIT TO CLARIFY THE PROPER APPLICATION OF FLORIDA V. WELLS IN LIGHT OF MULTIPLE CIRCUITS HOLDING THAT, CONTRARY TO EXPRESS HOLDING OF WELLS, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS A PREEXISTING INVENTORY POLICY RELATING TO THE SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINERS? 2. IN THIS CASE, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOW OR AGREE TO CONSPIRE WITH ANY OF THE NAMED CONSPIRATORS IN THE INDICTMENT. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND GOVERNMENT STATED IT DID NOT MATTER SINCE DEFENDANT HAD A SHARED INTEREST IN SELLING DRUGS AND CONSPIRED TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHOM WERE NOT NAMED IN INDICTMENT. WHETHER CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER, UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF BERGER V. UNITED STATES, A MATERIAL VARIANCE EXISTED WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SHOWS INVOLVEMENT IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DRUG CONSPIRACY THAN WHAT IS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT? i