GOODWIN, J.
Robert Krogness, Neil Hart and Thomas Russell were convicted of a burglary committed in Pendleton, Oregon. They appeal.
The only question before this court is whether certain evidence was illegally seized. The questioned exhibits are burglars’ tools and the loot from the burglary. They were found in the automobile in which the three defendants were riding. The automobile was stopped for a traffic violation. The evidence was taken in a search which followed. Timely motion was made to suppress the evidence.
The state argues that the illegality, if any, of the seizure cannot be a ground for suppressing the [138]*138evidence in an Oregon court because the evidence was seized by police officers of the state of Washington. While this argument might have required discussion in former times (see State of Oregon v. Olsen, 212 Or 191, 317 P2d 938 (1957)), the fruits of illegal police conduct may no longer be used as evidence in state courts. Ker v. California, 374 US 23, 83 S Ct 1623, 10 L Ed2d 726 (1963); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S 643, 81 S Ct 1684, 6 L Ed2d 1081, 84 ALR2d 933 (1961). Such evidence is inadmissible whether seized by Oregon officers or by police of another jurisdiction. Cf. Elkins v. United States, 364 US 206, 80 S Ct 1453, 4 L Ed2d 1669 (1960). If the evidence was the fruit of illegal government action, it was error not to suppress it. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471, 83 S Ct 407, 9 L Ed2d 441 (1963).
There is no claim in this case that the officers had a search warrant. Without a warrant, there can be no search or seizure, except for such reasonable search as may be an incident of a lawful arrest. State v. Chinn, 231 Or 259, 373 P2d 392 (1962).
In order to decide whether the trial court properly received the challenged exhibits in evidence, it is necessary to examine in some detail the testimony concerning the arrest of the defendants. There was some conflict in the testimony, but there was evidence from which the trial court could have determined the facts to be substantially as follows:
'Sergeant Frank Chase of the King County, Washington, sheriff’s patrol observed an automobile pass through a marked school crosswalk at a speed of 36 miles per hour during school hours. The maximum speed permitted at that time and place was 20 miles per hour. RCWA 46.48.023. Officer Chase stopped the car. The driver got out of the stopped car and [139]*139walked back toward tbe police car. Officer Chase recognized the driver as Neil Hart and greeted him by name. (There was other evidence in the case to the effect that Hart had a police record known to Officer Chase and at least one minor conviction in Seattle.)
The officer immediately by radio informed his headquarters that he had stopped Hart and two other subjects for a traffic violation. Officer Chase told Hart to sit beside him in the police car. He asked Hart who his companions were. Officer Chase then left Hart sitting in the police car and approached Hart’s car to verify the identities of Krogness and Bussell. At that time, Officer Chase saw on the back seat of Hart’s car a military-type rifle with a telescope sight. He did not know whether or not the weapon was loaded. There is no record that he inquired concerning the rifle.
About the time Officer Chase saw the rifle, other police cars arrived on the scene. Krogness and Bussell were asked to get out of Hart’s car and to sit in the other police cars. For all practical purposes, Krogness and Russell as well as Hart were under arrest from that moment, if they had not been before. See Henry v. United States, 361 US 98, 80 S Ct 168, 4 L Ed2d 134 (1959); and State v. Christensen, 151 Or 529, 533-534, 51 P2d 835 (1935), where it is said that the mere stopping of the motorist and placing him under the officer’s direction constituted an arrest. See generally on the law of arrest, Bemington, The Law Relating to “On the Street” Detention, Questioning and Frisking of Suspected Persons and Police Arrest Privileges in General, in Police Power and Individual Freedom 15-18 (Sowle ed 1962). Officer Chase asked Hart for the keys to the luggage compartment of the latter’s [140]*140car. Hart complied. There is no serious claim that Hart did so voluntarily.
In the luggage compartment the officer found a sack which contained some 200 pounds of coins, mostly in rolls bearing the name of a Pendleton bank. He also observed certain tools. At this point, Officer Chase apparently yielded the initiative in the proceedings to Detective R-onald Moore, who had arrived on the scene. Officer Moore supervised the search of all three occupants of the Hart automobile. The officers found about $4,500 in money, coin and paper, including the rolled and loose coins in the luggage compartment. Two pistols also were found, concealed about the interior of the automobile.
■Officer Chase said that detention pending bail is discretionary (ROWA 46.64.015), but is rarely used, even in connection with out-of-state motorists. (The Hart automobile carried Montana license plates.) All three defendants were willing and able to post bail. They were, however, taken to jail.
On cross examination Officer Chase explained why the other police cars were called:
“A I effected the arrest, then called a — effected the stop; I advised radio that I was stopping a car at a certain location.
“Q And within two or three minutes there were three cars there in addition to your car, is that not true?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q And was that because it was Neil Hart?
“A That would have had some bearing on it, maybe.
“Q Well, then, what was the purpose of the other three cars, or is it customary in King County [141]*141to ask for assistance if yon stop someone for a traffic violation at 36 miles per hour in a 20-mile zone?
“A If the defendant had been the same defendant, the request would have been made — the defendant Hart.”
Officer Chase, on direct examination, explained the arrest of Krogness and Bussell as follows:
“Q What did you do then?
“A I then walked up to the car and making sure that I would recognize either one or both of the defendants, I observed a hunting rifle in the rear seat. * * * #
“Q Now, Sergeant Chase, after you observed that, what, if anything, did you then do ?
“A I advised Mr. Hart that we were going to search his car at that time. Search was made, after seeing the rifle, with the anticipation of a game violation being committed.”
On cross examination he gave this account:
“Q Hid you take Krogness and Bussell out of that car?
“A I told Krogness and Bussell to sit in two separate patrol ears, yes.
“Q Then you placed them in custody at that point?
“A Yes.
“Q For what crime?
“A Aiding and abetting.
“Q Aiding and abetting what?
“A A traffic violation.
“Q The aiding and abetting of speeding?
“A Yes.
[142]*142“Q Now, you went into the suitcase in the trunk of the car?
“A Yes. The suitcase was opened.
“Q That looking for a game bird or a piece of deer?
“A Some game violation.”
The trial court did not set forth specific findings of fact upon which its rulings were predictated. See State v. Chinn, supra, and Townsend v. Sain, 372 US 293, 83 S Ct 745, 9 L Ed2d 770 (1963). Adequate findings are useful whenever constitutional issues are raised. Here the trial court published a written opinion in ruling on the motion to suppress. The opinion can fairly be construed as a finding that the officer made a lawful arrest for a traffic violation and thereafter searched the automobile in the reasonable belief that there had been a recent violation of the Washington game laws.
Whether we take our standards from the federal Fourth Amendment (through the Fourteenth) or from our own constitution’s Article I, § 9, both guarantee the people the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. The basic principle is clear.
The principle has proved difficult of application. Because of the mobility of criminals and of their pursuers, and for other reasons, the search warrant is not commonly employed. See Einhorn, The Exclusionary Rule in Operation — A Comparison of Illinois, California and Federal Law, 50 J Grim L, C & P S 144, 151 (1959). Accordingly, most searches that are challenged in court are those which have at least a color-able foundation in an arrest of some kind. Liquor law enforcement historically produced comprehensive searches as “incidents” of traffic arrests. See, e.g., [143]*143State v. Christensen, supra; Brinegar v. United States, 338 US 160, 69 S Ct 1302, 93 L Ed 1879 (1949); Husty v. United States, 282 US 694, 701, 51 S Ct 240, 75 L Ed 629, 74 ALR 1407 (1931); Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132, 149, 45 S Ct 280, 69 L Ed 543, 39 ALR 790 (1925); Marsh v. United States, 29 F2d 172 (2d Cir 1928). It may be questioned whether everything said in these cases would be given full effect today. If the arrest is illegal, then it can provide no legitimate foundation for a search. See People v. Mickelson, 30 Cal Reptr 18, 380 P2d 658 (1963).
Setting to one side cases like State v. Hoover, 219 Or 288, 347 P2d 69, 89 ALR2d 695 (1959), in which there is a lawful arrest for a felony or dangerous misdemeanor and the accompanying search produces evidence of other crimes, we have before us the more common situation in which a minor traffic violation has called the attention of the police to a felon who might otherwise have gone his way unmolested. See, e.g., People v. Lopes, 32 Cal Reptr 424, 384 P2d 16 (1963): arrest for traffic violation; superficial inspection of automobile revealed burglars’ tools; arrest for burglary; further search turned up evidence eventually used in conviction of first-degree murder.
Officer Chase properly stopped Hart’s automobile for a speeding violation. Given a legal arrest for a traffic violation, we have the preliminary question: What kind of a search is reasonable as an incident of a traffic arrest?
Certainly an officer may, and for his own safety should, approach every law violator with caution and circumspection. Collings, Toward Workable Rules of Search and Seizure — An Amicus Curiae Brief, 50 Calif L Rev 421, 429 (1962). Professor Collings observes that “[s]carcely a month passes in California without [144]*144a news report of the murder of a police officer attempting to make a traffic or other arrest.” In approaching a violator’s automobile the officer clearly has the right to observe anything that would be in plain view and observable by passers by. The question becomes troublesome only when the officer, usually acting upon the kind of intuition that comes from a policeman’s experience, sees something that causes him to investigate a particular violator with more care than is routinely employed in handing out summonses to housewives and commuters. Police officers are not constitutional lawyers, and they do their dangerous work in the light of facts as they reasonably appear during the episode to which courts later are free to apply hindsight. Clearly a superficial examination of the automobile is not only reasonable, but is good police practice.
As a general rule, the search must be reasonably related to the offense which prompts the arrest. The search may not, therefore, involve the luggage and other interior compartments of the vehicle merely because there has been a traffic arrest. The following cases involved comprehensive searches that were not reasonably related to traffic arrests: State v. Michaels, 60 Wash2d 638, 374 P2d 989 (1962) (failure to signal for left turn; search produced gambling equipment); Elliott et ux v. State, 173 Tenn 203, 116 SW2d 1009 (1938) (reckless driving; search produced contraband liquor in trunk); Courington v. State, 74 So2d 652 (Fla 1954) (driving while drunk; intoxicating liquor found in trunk); People v. Gonzales, 356 Mich 247, 97 N W2d 16 (1959) (driving at night with only one headlight; concealable weapon found stuck in front seat.) Cf. The People v. Watkins, 19 Ill2d 11, 166 NE2d 433 (1960) (arrest for parking too far from curb; discovery of [145]*145“policy” paraphernalia upheld on other grounds); People v. Blodgett, 46 Cal2d 114, 293 P2d 57 (1956) (double-parking; marijuana found in seat cushions; arrest and search upheld because of “furtive” conduct).
The trial court properly concluded in the case at bar that the arrest for a traffic offense, of itself, provided no lawful occasion for a comprehensive search of the automobile. The court noted, however, that after the traffic arrest had been accomplished other facts came to light. The court found that these facts gave the police officer reason to believe that a game-law violation had been committed. The court then found that the officer had probable cause to make a search for evidence of such game-law violation. It is this finding of fact that controls this case.
Where the officer, without trespassing, sees contraband or other evidence reasonably causing him to believe that contraband is being transported or that some other crime is being committed in his presence, he may have probable cause to make an arrest for the newly discovered offense as well as for the traffic offense which initially brought the subject to the attention of the officer. In such a case, while there may be no distinct demarcation between the first and second arrests, there does exist, prior to any extensive search, a probable-cause foundation for an arrest for an offense more serious than a traffic violation. The officer then is justified in making such a search as may be commensurate with the gravity of the newly discovered situation. Probable cause to arrest for the more serious offense, when present, will answer constitutional objections to the rigor of the ensuing search. A fairly comprehensive search is a proper incident of an arrest for a game violation even though [146]*146its “incidentalness” may be one step removed from the original traffic offense.
The situation is somewhat analogous to that in which some minor offense becomes the opening wedge for an officer’s discovery of a new crime. But this development must occur lawfully. Intervening probable cause to arrest for a serious offense, if it came about in a legitimate manner, can make legitimate a search that would have been unreasonable if undertaken as an “incident” of the traffic arrest alone. See People v. Lopes, supra. Under the peculiar circumstances of the Lopes case, the result perhaps could have been reached without the aid of the California rule that permits police officers in certain circumstances to “frisk” suspicious persons without probable cause to make any arrest. (The rationale of the California rule which calls short-term detention for questioning and “frisking” something less than an arrest may be found in People v. Mickelson, 30 Cal Reptr 18, 380 P2d 658 (1963).) The attempt to achieve a tolerable “middle ground” between freewheeling police oppression as an impossible choice on the one hand and the strict requirement of probable cause to arrest as a precondition of the right to search on the other hand is defended in Professor Collings’ article cited supra.
8. It has been suggested that probable cause to search need not be the same as probable cause to arrest. We believe, however, that the spirit of the constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches requires the same degree of good-faith belief in the guilt of a suspect to justify a search of his person or of his effects as would be required to support his arrest or an application for a warrant to search his home. As a practical matter, it is difficult to explain how the police can search an individual without arresting him, [147]*147since any substantial detention without his consent would fit the definition of an arrest found in such criminal cases as State v. Christensen, 151 Or 529, supra, and such civil cases as Lukas v. J. C. Penney Co., 238 Or 345, 378 P2d 717 (1963). If there is sufficient cause, as a matter of law, to justify whatever arrest is necessary physically to make a search, then a reasonable search is a lawful incident of such an arrest. If there is not probable cause to arrest, there is no logical basis for saying that one may nevertheless be arrested on suspicion and detained long enough for the officers to search him to satisfy themselves that he is indeed as innocent as the law presumes him to be. "We need not decide in this case the constitutionality of the game laws that purport to authorize certain searches of a kind that are not involved in the case at bar. Some of the seasonal and regional practices of game wardens may be covered by consent, express or implied, but such matters are not presented in the case of a roadside arrest admittedly made for traffic purposes.
In the case at bar, we must decide whether the trial court had before it any substantial evidence to support a finding that there was probable cause to believe contraband was present in the automobile. The factual question before the trial court was whether the police officer, on the facts he described, had a good-faith belief, as well as reasonable grounds to believe, that the three young men he had stopped were, in fact, returning from a poaching expedition. If there was evidence from which the trial court could have drawn the inference that was drawn, there is no need for us to speculate whether, upon the same record, this court necessarily would draw the same inferences. Where findings of fact have substantial support in the [148]*148evidence, this court ordinarily does not retry facts which may underlie trial court rulings on the admissibility of evidence.
Officer Chase was an ex-officio game warden. He said that when he saw the rifle he thought he might find evidence of a game violation. Under RCWA 77.12.090, if that statute is constitutional, an officer is authorized to “search without warrant, any conveyance, vehicle, game bag, game basket, * * * or other similar place which he has reason to believe contains evidence of violations of law or rules and regulations of the commission.” We assume that in Washington “reason to believe” means “probable cause to believe.” We do not deem it either necessary or proper to “declare” the quoted statute unconstitutional. We have a similar statute in Oregon. OBS 496.660. We leave open the question whether such a statute would be upheld if it were to be construed as permitting a search upon mere suspicion. We do not so construe the Washington statute. There must be probable cause to believe a given offense has been committed (transportation of contraband) before there can be a search for evidence of it. In Oregon, probable cause “has been defined as the existence of such circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe in the guilt of the accused * * State v. Duffy et al., 135 Or 290, 301, 295 P 953 (1931). Compare State v. Leadbetter, 210 Wis 327, 246 NW 443 (1933), and State v. Johnson, 210 Wis 334, 246 NW 446 (1933).
Probable cause to believe that a vehicle is transporting contraband, and is therefore subject to search for such contraband, has been explained thus:
“* * * This is to say that the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which * * * [149]*149[the officers] had reasonably trustworthy information, were sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that intoxicating liquor was being transported in the automobile which they stopped and searched.” Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132, 162, 45 S Ct 280, 69 L Ed 543, 39 ALR 790 (1925).
The trial judge’s implied finding that the officer acted upon probable cause to believe that contraband game animals or birds were being transported in the Hart automobile is sufficient to support the challenged ruling unless we can say as a matter of law that the finding is unsupported by substantial evidence. In other words, where there is conflicting evidence, all testimonial conflicts, choices of permissible inferences, and conclusions to be drawn therefrom, are resolved by the trial court’s ruling, so long as it appears that the trial court employed constitutional standards in applying the law. See Stein v. New York, 346 US 156, 73 S Ct 1077, 97 L Ed 1522 (1953). The finding must not, however, be wholly lacking in support in the evidence. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 US 293, supra.
It is clear from the trial court’s opinion that the trial court did apply correct constitutional standards. The court stated that the officer relied upon the presence of the rifle, equipped as it was with a telescope sight, together with the known petty-offense records and the behavior of the occupants of the automobile, in arriving at the belief that if he searched further, he would find proof of a game violation. The court observed the witnesses and heard their testimony. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that no reasonable man would have had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband game.
[150]*150When the whole of the testimony is read, the defendants point ont, a contrary inference is also supportable by the evidence. One could believe that the police officers suspected that where Hart and Krogness, known to them to be petty hoodlums, and a third man, unknown to them, were together in an automobile, they were up to no good. It could be inferred also that the officers upon mere suspicion undertook an exploratory search and then found proof of a recent burglary. The defense argues that only when the search was challenged on constitutional grounds did it occur to the officers that there may have been some connection between the rifle which they had observed and a possible game violation. Whatever may be said for the defense argument, it ignores the fact that the trial judge believed the police officers, confused though they were, at times, on the witness stand.
■ We are not prepared to hold that the police may search an automobile for evidence of a game-law violation any time they observe a rifle in the vehicle. Any such rule would be easy to abuse. It would put the decision to search or not to search virtually within the uncontrolled discretion of the police. That is exactly what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent.
We do hold, however, that where a trial court, employing proper constitutional standards, finds as a matter of fact that the officer making the search acted upon facts that would create in a reasonable mind a belief that there was a game violation, then this court will not try the case de novo to see if some other interpretation of the facts can be supported.
Once the search for illegal game uncovered the implements and fruits of another crime, it was reasonable for the police officers to believe that an offense more serious than a game-law violation had been com[151]*151mitted, e.g., receiving and concealing stolen property, or burglary, or ex-convicts in possession of concealed weapons (pistols). The officers at that point were under no duty to release their prisoners until such time as an investigation would reveal exactly what place had been the victim of a burglary, or exactly whose property had been stolen.
Where a legal arrest is made for a traffic offense, and a lawful search based upon probable cause to believe there has been a game violation thereafter uncovers evidence of another crime, the evidence can lawfully be used to prove the crime thus discovered. See Church v. State, 206 Tenn 336, 333 SW2d 799 (1959); Goodwin v. State, 148 Tenn 682, 257 SW 79 (1923).
If an officer lawfully examines the trunk of an automobile and finds therein a bullet-riddled human body, the officer need not decide, on peril of voiding a future prosecution, whether to arrest the driver of the automobile for murder (ORS 163.010) or for transporting a body without a permit from the state board of health (ORS 432.340). It is reasonable for the officer in such a case to assume that a serious offense of some kind is being committed, or has been committed, and it is reasonable for him to seek to preserve the status quo until some reasonable questions have been answered. See Traynor, Mapp v. Ohio at Large in the Fifty States, 1962 Duke L J 319, 331 (1962).
Whether the Washington police officers later followed correct procedure in booking the prisoners at the jail is not a material question in this case. The search was legal when it was made. It is sufficient for the purposes of this case that the search was not unlawful. The articles seized were, accordingly, subject to seizure without a warrant. The fact that the [152]*152circumstances developed as they did to give the officers probable cause to believe crimes other than speeding were being committed did not make the original stopping of the ear illegal. The original arrest was clearly in good faith, and was in no sense a pretext for an exploratory search.
All three defendants were equally caught up in the events that flowed from the original arrest of Hart. As there was nothing illegal about the arrest of Hart, nor in the search of Ms auto, we need not inquire into the irregularities, if any, that may have made the incidental detention of Krogness and Bussell subject to some formal criticism.
The only other assignment of error contends that the jury, rather than the judge, should have passed upon the legality of the search. The question of probable cause to arrest and the reasonableness of the search which followed the arrest were properly decided by the court. Steele v. United States No. 2, 267 US 505, 511, 45 S Ct 417, 69 L Ed 761 (1925). The authorities cited by the defendants do not support their theory that those questions were for the jury.
Affirmed.