Defendant is the owner (but not driver) of a vehicle stopped because officer had knowledge driver did not have a driver license. During stop defendant gives consent to search vehicle. Drugs are found and both occupants are arrested. During the search defendant kept interrupting officer. When officer picks up a dental floss box out of her purse, defendant says "that's dental floss" and officer drops it back in purse.

Later, officer remembers how defendant was interrupting her and goes to personal belongings and rechecks defendant's purse and finds drugs in dental floss. No search warrant was obtained.

Was a search warrant required?

If search of purse was after drugs were found in vehicle, then I would argue no, search pursuant to arrest and vehicle inventory.

If search of purse was before drugs were found in vehicle, then it's a good search only if the consent included the purse, which, presumably, was inside the vehicle. That argument could maybe go either way, but just from a common sense stand point, if I told someone they could search my vehicle, I wouldn't be thinking they could also search inside my purse, just because it's in the vehicle. Legally might be arguable, though.

Before the drugs were found, no probable cause for warrant. AFter drugs were found, other available avenues to search.

If search was completed and terminated without finding any drugs and then he went back and searched the purse again may have problem. As always very fact specific and whether consent from defendant was still in effect after prior search completed.

Thanks for the quick answer, but let me explain.

Officers found drugs in car and arrested both occupants. During search defendant kept interrupting officer, explaining what items were.

AFTER defendant was placed in jail, officer went back and rechecked purse. That is my issue. Did officer need a warrant for the purse at the jail?

Sounds rather similar to Threadgill v. State, 146 SW3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). A defendant doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his clothes and personal effects that were seized, inventoried, and stored when he went to jail. If she's arrested, sent to jail, and the police take her purse and other effects, does she really have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it anymore?

See also Oles v. State, 993 SW2d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) -- once the police have lawfully seized the personal effects of an arrestee, his expectation of privacy is diminished unless he can and does show a subjective expectation of privacy in the items.

I think you're good--search pursuant to arrest.

I've prosecuted a fair number of possessors who had drugs in their wallets when they got to the jail. The purse would be searched thoroughtly to make sure the arrestee's money and personal affects were still there when released.