>>869932That's a specific statute under your state law. Do note the phrase "which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted to this title" within the statute you posted. Those rules adopted to this particular law may stipulate that a locked container of a fisherman is reasonable suspicion or they may default to constitutional law. The missing section is the key to knowing a lawful search from an unlawful search. This is different, just like I said the first time.
>>869040 >unless the law provides for said search as a condition of being licensed
You said
>>869347>in california they will search your stuff and if suspicion is aroused they will search your car and homeSo my locked cooler completely negates my protection under the 4th Amendment in your world. The police can simply go through my curtilage, over the fenced in yard, past the no trespassing signs, break off the lock, and search my sugar bowl for a stolen TV because they're suspicious? No probable cause is needed in your area? Here's some light reading:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment>officers dont do shit here if youre smoking weed.pic related