discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Tennessee v. Leslie Darrell Debord This issue is without merit. 2 An individual’s reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle stems from the “pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the pub lic highways.” Carney, 471 U .S. at 392, 105 S. Ct. at 2069 (citing Cady v. Dom browski, 413 U .S. 433, 440-41, 93 S. Ct. 252 3, 2527-28 (1 973)). -6- Having concluded that the search of the appellant’s truck and the drill box were justified, we likewise conclude that there is no merit to the appellant’s complaints regarding the search of his property and property belonging to his father and brother.

discussed Cited "see" Ralph Nader v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State See Westermann v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 1236, 1236-37 , 93 S.Ct. 252 , 34 L.Ed.2d 207 (1972) (denying, on October 20, 1972, the motion for a preliminary injunction brought by candidates of the American Independent Party regarding their absence from the Arizona ballot for the November 7, 1972 election, where the costs of reprinting would be substantial, the absentee ballots had already been sent out, and the “orderly election processes would likely be disrupted ...,” despite the fact that “[t]he complaint may have merit.”).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker See, e.g., Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 34-35 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968) (denying requested relief, despite unconstitutionality of statute, because “the confusion that would attend such a last-minute change poses a risk of interference with the rights of other Ohio citizens” and “relief cannot be granted without serious disruption of election process”); Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585 (“where an impending election is imminent and a State’s election machinery is already in process, equitable considerations might justify a court in withholding the granting of immediately effec…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner (2×) See also Westermann v. Nelson (1972), 409 U.S. 1236, 1236-1237 , 93 S.Ct. 252 , 34 L.Ed.2d 207 (W.O.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. DeBoise See also People v. Springs, 51 Ill.2d 418, 425 , 283 N.E.2d 225 , appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 908 , 34 L.Ed.2d 169 , 93 S.Ct. 252 ; People v. Damen, 28 Ill.2d 464, 469 , 193 N.E.2d 25 ; People v. Doss, 26 Ill.App.3d 1 , 324 N.E.2d 210 .