WA: Empty plastic bags in pocket not RS; totality here not RS either

Possession of empty plastic baggies in the pocket is not reasonable suspicion that the defendant is a drug dealer. Other facts urged by the state are all consistent with legal activity, and, in totality, do not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to detain for a dog alert. (n. 2: The court reserves for later the question of whether a dog alert is reliable.) State v. Neth, 165 Wn.2d 177, 196 P.3d 658 (2008):

But absent some other evidence of illicit activity, the mere possession of a few empty, unused plastic baggies in a coat pocket does not constitute probable cause to search an automobile, even when combined with nervousness, inconsistent statements, and a large sum of money in the car. Baggies are capable of use for lawful as well as unlawful purposes. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 41, 43 n.3, 534 N.E.2d 24 (1989). Innocuous objects that are equally consistent with lawful and unlawful conduct do not constitute probable cause to search. Cf. State v. Hughes, 20 Or. App. 493, 502-03, 532 P.2d 818 (1975) (beakers, jars, scales, and rubber gloves are not probable cause justifying issuance of search warrant). More is required to rise to the level of probable cause that a crime is being committed.

Not dimming lights for oncoming traffic is a reasonable basis for a stop, here leading to a DUI. State v. Winemiller, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 918 (November 20, 2008).*

The police had probable cause to arrest based on the victim’s phone being taken by her attacker, a call made from that phone to defendant’s house, defendant fit the description of her attacker, and the car the attacker left in was parked outside of defendant’s house. Baker v. State, 295 Ga. App. 162, 671 S.E.2d 206 (2008).*