There's no such Constitutional thing as a "search pursuant to a lawful stop". You're confusing a "search pursuant to a lawful arrest" with the phrase that you just made up. Lawful arrest. Absent a lawful arrest, there should at least be probable cause. This case involved neither.
This is what I posted on another thread.....
From the case:
THE PEOPLE,Plaintiff and Respondent,v.CONRAD RICHARD McKAY
B137511 (Super. Ct. No. YA040916)
* * * FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
At approximately 6 p.m. on June 19, 1999, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Valento observed appellant riding a bicycle in the wrong direction on a residential street. Deputy Valento initiated a traffic stop intending to issue a citation for this violation of section 21650.1. The deputy asked appellant for identification. Appellant gave his name and date of birth, but stated he did not have any written identification with him. Deputy Valento then took appellant into custody, in accordance with section 40302, based on his failure “to present his driver’s license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.”
During a search incident to the arrest, Deputy Valento recovered a clear cellophane baggie from appellant’s sock. The baggie contained methamphetamine. The deputy placed appellant in the back of his patrol car. He then “ran” appellant’s name and date of birth through a computer in the patrol car, and received an address consistent with the address appellant had given and a general description which matched appellant.
Appellant was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine, with allegations that he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction and that he had served two prior prison terms. After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, appellant entered a guilty plea and admitted the prior conviction allegations. He was sentenced to the low term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months as a second strike. The court struck the prior prison term allegations. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. * * *
Yeah, the guy was probably scum of the earth. But,this is the part I have a problem with... "Deputy Valento then took appellant into custody, in accordance with section 40302, based on his failure “to present his driver’s license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.” 12 posted on 3/4/02 3:43 PM Eastern by CFW