Shepard, Senior Judge
When a police dog alerts to the presence of narcotics in a vehicle, does an officer have probable cause to arrest and thus search the vehicle’s passenger? On the facts of this case, we answer yes and therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 24, 2012, Officer John Weir of the Plymouth Police Department was on duty in his squad car with his canine partner Rex, who was trained in narcotics detection. When a vehicle in front of them repeatedly crossed the center line, Officer Weir initiated a traffic stop. Christopher Fields was in the driver’s seat, and appellant C.R. was in the front passenger seat. Officer Weir recognized both from previous interactions and knew that a warrant had been issued for Fields just the day before.
On the basis of the warrant, Officer Weir arrested Fields and placed him in his squad car. He then retrieved Rex and walked him counterclockwise from the front bumper of the vehicle. Rex alerted at the driver’s door.
Officer Weir asked C.R.to step out of the vehicle and then called Officer Bridget Hite to the scene so that she could search C.R. In conducting the search, Officer Hite noticed that C.R.appeared to favor one side, so she asked her to raise her arm on that side. When C.R. did so, a small tin fell out of her shirt onto the ground. The tin held two small plastic baggies containing a white powdery substance later determined to be meth.
. . . .
. . . Rex’s positive alert at the driver’s door provided probable cause to believe the vehicle contained illegal drugs. See State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1281, 1286 (Ind. 2010) (“The subsequent dog sniff provided probable cause that the vehicle contained illicit drugs.”). And because there was probable cause to believe the vehicle contained drugs, there was probable cause to believe any of its passengers had at least constructive possession of the drugs.
C.R.nonetheless argues that her mere presence as a passenger in the suspected vehicle was not enough to establish probable cause as to her. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated otherwise. In Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S. Ct. 795, 157 L. Ed. 2d 769 (2003), a car occupied by Pringle and two other men was stopped for speeding. In the course of the stop, the officers received consent to search the car and found a large sum of money in the glove compartment and cocaine behind the backseat armrest. When questioned, the men offered no information about who owned the drugs or money. They were arrested.
The sole question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether there was probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed a crime. The unanimous Court concluded: “We think it an entirely reasonable inference from these facts that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine. Thus, a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly.” Id. at 372.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court distinguished Pringle’s case with a case in which a person was singled out as the guilty party. See United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S. Ct. 222, 92 L. Ed. 210 (1948). . . . .
Here, Rex’s positive alert provided probable cause to believe there were drugs in the vehicle. And there was no indication that Fields, and only Fields, was involved in narcotics activity. It was thus an entirely reasonable inference that any of the vehicle’s occupants had at least constructive possession of drugs. C.R.’s arrest and the subsequent search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
. . . .
Rex gave a positive alert on the vehicle in which C.R. was riding. There was thus a high degree of suspicion that C.R. actually or constructively possessed illegal drugs. And although any search of a person necessarily intrudes on that person’s ordinary activities, there is no evidence or claim that the one here was in any way extensive. When Officer Hite noticed C.R.did not want to raise one arm, she ordered her to raise it. When C.R. did so, the methamphetamine tin fell out of her shirt onto the ground. Given the minimal nature of the search, the degree of intrusion was slight. Finally, the extent of law enforcement needs was significant. Rex’s positive alert for narcotics turned the traffic stop into a narcotics investigation and gave rise to a reasonable belief that C.R. had illegal drugs on her person. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the search of C.R. was reasonable under the Indiana Constitution.
Because the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11, there was no error in the admission of the meth evidence at C.R.’s trial.
NAJAM, J., and RILEY, J., concur.