“Constructive possession of drug paraphernalia is sufficient probable cause to arrest.” State v. Terrill, 2018 ND 78, 2018 N.D. LEXIS 89 (Mar. 22, 2018).

Ordering defendant out of his vehicle was reasonable even in a stop for overtinted windows. The generic question whether “there is anything illegal in the vehicle,” invites a yes or no answer. When the detention extended to calling for a drug dog, there was no reasonable suspicion. Defendant was compliant and did as instructed. The detention was essentially because of criminal history and the part of town from which defendant was driving, and that’s not enough. State v. Dillard, 2018 Del. Super. LEXIS 127 (Mar. 16, 2018).*

Officers went to a shopping center parking lot to roust people meeting in the parking lot that they suspected were gang members. Defendant was told to leave, and he drove around and didn’t. The stop of his car was based on reasonable suspicion of trespassing. United States v. Sanchez-Munoz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46469 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2018).*

“Mr. Mayweather’s challenge to the adequacy of probable cause for the search of his car is even less persuasive. The warrant contains specific information, provided by the informant, that Mr. Mayweather drove the car in question to drug transactions. The confidential informant identified the make and model of Mr. Mayweather’s car as the one used in narcotic transactions. Id. at 2. The affidavit also describes law enforcement officers’ observations of Mr. Mayweather leaving from his home in his car, meeting another individual and getting into her car, and driving to her home before she left to conduct suspected narcotics sales. Id. at 3.” Aside from the probable cause, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Mayweather, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43516 (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2018).*