Eddie also made a right turn without signaling and he was not in the furthest right lane, which seems like he didn't want to turn that way if he hadn't seen the cops. These facts gave the police reasonable cause because Eddie seemed as if he was evading the cops on purpose.
Was the search of the car constitutional? Yes it was constitutional. The police had probable cause and they didn't need a warrant. This proves that the 4th Amendment and the exclusionary rule do not apply to Eddie's case and therefore the drugs can be used against him because the police had enough cause to search the car. The police need probable cause to search a car; they do not however need a warrant to search a car. The Carroll v. United States case for example, the police were trying to purchase liquor illegally at the time from three men. The three men agreed to sell them liquor, which was illegal at the time because it was during the prohibition period. The men then left in an Oldsmobile, saying they would return with the liquor, they never did. A few days later the cops saw two of the men in the same Oldsmobile they left in from a few days ago. The cops proceeded to stop the car and search it, finding liquor. The suspects" argued that the search was unconstitutional. The suspects lost the case because the police do not need a warrant to search a car; if they did get one the car would be gone by the time they've returned. (2) Probable cause means having reason that would cause the average person to think evidence probably would be found. When the officers asked both suspects their names, they each gave one, neither one showed up as the owner of the vehicle. This being the case, the officers suspected the car to be stolen. Therefore, a search was performed to find out the real owner because the car could be stolen. Those facts created probable cause due to the suspects failing to prove ownership of the car at the time.