The Supreme Court found that the information supplied by the informant was sufficient to show probable cause. In Gomez v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1973, 471 F.2d 774, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 843, 94 S.Ct. 103, 38 L.Ed.2d 81, a case factually very similar to the case at bar, we found a tip from informers to be sufficiently detailed so as to establish probable cause when the details were confirmed by officers' surveillance. The Court related the facts and holding in Gomez as follows:

The crucial question before us is whether the agents, having seized the suitcases, could open and search them or whether, while retaining them in their dominion and control, they were required to appear before a magistrate and seek a warrant to examine them. E. g., United States v. Chapman, 474 F.2d 300 (CA5, 1973); Gomez v. Beto, 471 F.2d 774 (CA5, 1973); United States v. Henderson, 469 F.2d 1074 (CA5, 1972); United States v. Gulledge, 469 F.2d 713 (CA5, 1972); United States v. Miles, 445 F.2d 974 (CA5), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 912, 92 S.Ct. 231, 30 L.Ed.2d 185 (1971). Indubitably the suitcases were "effects" within the fourth amendment's protection of "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."

"Given probable cause to search, either course is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." See also the recent case (January 2, 1973) of Gomez v. Beto, 471 F.2d 774, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellant's argument is without merit. There was also testimony that Easley consented to the search of the automobile.