Does the district court err by denying a motion to suppress a plastic bag containing heroin seized at the time of his arrest?

The district court did not err by denying Shamsian's motion to suppress a plastic bag containing heroin seized at the time of his arrest. Evidence presented at the suppression hearing revealed that experienced law enforcement officers not only had evidence at the scene of the heroin transaction which was consistent with illegal activity, but also possessed detailed information from an informant who had previously purchased heroin from Shamsian at the exact time and location of the transaction that occurred in this case. This information was derived from an investigation that had been in place for several weeks, had involved prior negotiations for the heroin, and had entailed corroborated information from the informant. The existence of probable cause to arrest Shamsian under these circumstances, and to therefore effectuate a valid search incident to an arrest, was overwhelming. See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1981).