Whether the warrantless search of luggage stored in a motel closet was valid as incident to arrest

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED PETITIONER AT TRIAL FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE ADMITS WAS FOUND DURING A WARRANTLESS SEARCH.Petitioner's MOTION WAS BASED ON THE RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN U.S. v. CHADWICK,433 U.S. 1 (1977) WHICH CONTAINS SIMULAR FACTS. IN DENYING PETITIONER'S APPEAL THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT,AT AUSTIN HELD THAT THE LUGGAGE STORED IN THE MOTELS CLOS' ET WAS NOT A 200 LB FOOTLOCKER STORED IN THE BOOT OF AN AUTOMOBILE AND WAS CONTEMPORANEOUS TO HIS CUSTODIAL ARREST.THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE ITEMS COULD BE CONSIDERED AS BEING PART OF AN ARREST INCIDENT AS IT WOULD BE INCONCEIVEABLE THAT THEY WOULD NOT FOLLOW PETITIONER INTO CUSTODY.LASTLY THE COURT STATED THAT TWO PERSONS COULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF POSSESSING THE SAME ITEMS BECAUSE THEY WERE ARRESTED TOGETHER,BASICALLY STATED. THE QUESTIONS ALL THIS RAISES ARE : : (1)DOES THE SIZE OF AN ITEM DETERMINE WHETHER A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST HAS OCCURRED OR IS IT IN THE DISTANCE FROM THE ARRESTEE? (2) WHAT IS MEANT BY CONTEMPORANEOUS TO A CUSTODIAL ARREST?IS IT WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING OR. CONTAINED ON HIS PERSON AS SOME COURTS HAVE RULED? (3)WHEN ONE PERSON PLEADS GUILTY TO POSSESSING THE ITEMS AND TESTIFIES THAT ALL THE ITEMS CONFISCATED BELONGED SOLELY TO HER CAN THE COURT LATER STATE THAT THE ITEMS WERE OWNED JOINTLY? . (4) IS MORE REQUIRED TO PROVE OWNERSHIP THAN THE FACT THAT A WHITE T-SHIRT AND BOXER SHORTS WERE FOUND IN THE LUGGAGE BAG AND THAT PETITIONER WAS WEARING A WHITE T-SHIRT AT TIME OF ARREST? IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSION,JUST BECAUSE THAT PERSON CARRIED THE i. ’ > ITEM AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER? (5) THE COURT NOTED THAT THE LUGGAGE WAS LEFT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MOTEL CLERK AND PETITIONER WERE TO BE BACK AROUND TWELVE TO CHECK IN.A RECIPT FROM JACK-IN-THE-BOX FROM 11:21 FOUND IN MS.PEREZ'S PURSE IS SUFFI€LENT PROOF THAT ALL THE BAGS WERE CONTEMPORANEOUS TO ARREST.WOULD THE CONTEMPORANEOUS ITEMS INCLUDE THE BAGS THAT WERE IN A CLOSET BEHIND THE CHECK-IN COUNTER OR ONLY WHAT WAS IN MS.PEREZ'S PURSE AND PETITIONER'S POCKETS? t6) SHOULD THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL BE ALLOWED TO GIVE WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN ADVISORY OPINION BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW AS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GIVE REASON FOR HIS DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE? THE ABLITY TO MAKE USE OF ANY THEORY OF LAW INSTEAD OF THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE COURT. INSTEAD OF ANY CORRECT THEORY OR SHOULD: THE/REVIEW0!') HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER THE HISTORIC FACTS OF THE CASE SUCH AS THE FACT THAT THE ITEMS SEARCH WERE NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE ARRESTEES NOR WERE THEY IN PLAIN VIEW SINCE THEY WERE INSIDE A CLOSET? “4h. oo . "