SPOKANE - An appellate court upheld the conviction of a woman found with 750 ecstasy pills in her purse.

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III ruled on the conviction of Maya Campbell for possession with the intent to deliver. The ruling came after Campbell argued a search warrant for the car she was in didn't include her purse inside the car.

Campbell's case started when the Grand Coulee police attempted to conduct a police operation using a confidential informant to purchase 700 pills of ecstasy, according to court records. The informant met Jeffrey Joseph in a picnic area close to an Electric City grocery store parking lot. Campbell was one of the passengers sitting in the SUV while Joseph spoke to the informant.

"Officers were positioned near the picnic area and one was close enough to overhear parts of the negotiations between the informant and Mr. Joseph," according to the opinion. "Among the conversation overheard was Mr. Joseph's statement that he had the pills in the car and, at another point, that he needed to discuss terms with his unidentified 'partner.'"

Joseph went back to the vehicle several times to speak with someone inside, according to the opinion.

Joseph became apprehensive about the situation and left without completing the sale, according to court records. Officers stopped the SUV shortly after it left and ordered each of the occupants out of the car. When Campbell got out of the vehicle, she left her purse inside. Officers applied for and received a search warrant. While she was waiting, Campbell asked if she could get her purse and leave, officers refused, saying they were applying for a search warrant.

"The search of the car led to the discovery of 750 pills of (ecstasy), found in Ms. Campbell's purse," according to the opinion. "Ms. Campbell was later arrested and charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver as well as one count of simple possession."

After a hearing, a Grant County Superior Court judge ruled the search was lawful, since police believed a large number of ecstasy pills were in the vehicle, according to the opinion.

"The probable cause was not - as contrasted to a person's arrest - limited to the driver or any particular occupant," according to the superior court ruling. "Rather, it was associated with the vehicle, and all its contents. That any particular item of contents ... was associated with any particular occupant is irrelevant."

Campbell's attorney argued the search was illegal because the search of her purse wouldn't have happened if she could have gotten it and left, according to the opinion.

The appeals court disagreed, pointing out the officer believed the purse was going to be within the scope of the warrant.

"Mr. Joseph's statements and behavior in the course of his negotiations provided reason for officers to believe that the drugs, while in the car, were in an unknown location, and that another unknown occupant of the car was a 'partner' in the potential sale.  Ms. Campbell does not assign error to the trial court's conclusions that the search warrant was valid and that the search of the vehicle did not exceed its scope," according to the opinion. "Because the purse fell within the scope of the warrant, officers were not required to release it while awaiting the warrant and its search, once the warrant was obtained, was not an unlawful search of Ms. Campbell's person."