Does the search of a van without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?

"In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration," the court "should take care to consider whether the police are acting in a swiftly developing situation, and in such cases the court should not indulge in unrealistic second-guessing. [Citation.] A creative judge engaged in post hoc evaluation of police conduct can almost always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the police might have been accomplished." (United States v. Sharpe, supra, 470 U.S. at pp. 686-687.) That the officers here theoretically could have found other ways to check for registration and proof of insurance when faced with the demands of the situation does not make the detention unreasonable.

C. The Search of the Van Did Not Violate the Fourth Amendment

Hammond contends the officers illegally opened the door to his van instead of allowing him to retrieve his registration and proof of insurance. A warrantless search and seizure is presumed to be unlawful, and the prosecution has the burden of justifying it. (People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909, 915-916.) Here, however, the officers' legitimate concerns for their safety justified opening the door to the van without a warrant.