THE COURTS GENERALLY HAVE FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE THAT A SIMPLE TRAFFIC VIOLATON IS NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY SEARCHING OR UNDULY DETAINING A MOTORIST. POLICE OFFICERS, HOWEVER, OCCASIONALLY ENCOUNTER SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE INITIAL TRAFFIC STOP PROVOKES SUSPICION OF A MORE SERIOUS CRIME, SUCH AS DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED OR THE TRANSPORTATION OF CONTRABAND. THESE LATTER SITUATIONS INVOKE A COMPLEX AND CONFUSING AREA OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AND MAY JUSTIFY A GREATER INTRUSION OF THE MOTORIST'S RIGHTS. EXAMPLES FROM CALIFORNIA CASE LAW INDICATE THAT ANY VIOLATION OF A TRAFFIC LAW JUSTIFIES STOPPING AND TEMPORARILY DETAINING A MOTORIST; HOWEVER, THE OFFICER'S INVESTIGATION IS LIMITED TO THE EFFORT NEEDED TO ISSUE A CITATION. A SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE WHICH IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE CRIME FOR WHICH THE MOTORIST WAS STOPPED IS UNREASONABLE PER SE, ALTHOUGH OFFICERS MAY PROTECT THEMSELVES BY CONDUCTING A PAT-DOWN FRISK OF A DETAINED MOTORIST AND MAY SEARCH THE AREA NEAR THE DRIVER FOR WEAPONS. CONTRABAND WHICH IS IN PLAIN VIEW OF THE OFFICERS ALSO MAY BE SEIZED AND USED IN COURTS, BUT SEARCHES OF CONCEALED AREAS, SUCH AS THE CAR TRUNK, REQUIRE AN INDEPENDENT REASON FOR INSPECTION. CASE LAW INDICATES THAT AN OFFICER'S DETECTION OF THE STRONG SMELL OF MARIHUANA IS A CAR MAY PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR A SEARCH, BUT FURTIVE GESTURES ALONE WOULD NOT PROVIDE SUCH JUSTIFICATION. RECORD CHECKS MUST NOT RESULT IN THE UNREASONABLE DELAY OF THE MOTORIST. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED IN THE TRAINING MANUAL. (TWK)