Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer could see one case of alcohol in the front seat of the car, but the defendant later denied that any liquor was visible.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of his arrest on the grounds that the officer did not have probable cause, and thus the seizure of the alcohol was not pursuant to a valid stop.

The Supreme Court, in finding the arrest to be constitutional, stated that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant's car.

[3] The Court emphasized that "probable cause" was the standard for conducting the arrest, not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" as is required for criminal convictions.

"[4] Nonetheless, the Court cautioned, probable cause still requires "a reasonable ground for belief of guilt."