dissenting.
[¶ 18] I respectfully dissent. There was competent evidence to support the district court’s findings, the court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the information known to law enforcement at the time of the search, without more, did not constitute probable cause. I would affirm the district court’s suppression order.
I
[¶ 19] In reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to the district court’s findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. State v. Graf, 2006 ND 196, ¶ 7, 721 N.W.2d 381. We will affirm a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress if “there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” Id. (quoting City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D.1994)). Our standard of review recognizes the importance of the district court’s opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 10, 685 N.W.2d 120. Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law. Graf, at ¶ 7.
II
[¶20] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless it falls into a narrowly-defined exception to the warrant requirement. See State v. Genre, 2006 ND 77, ¶ 17, 712 N.W.2d 624. The automobile exception is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Haibeck, 2004 ND 163, ¶ 10, 685 N.W.2d 512.
[¶ 21] To search under the automobile exception, law enforcement must have probable cause. Id. “Probable cause to search exists if it is established that certain identifiable objects are probably connected with criminal activity and are probably to be found at the present time at an identifiable place.” Roth v. State, 2006 ND 106, ¶ 13, 713 N.W.2d 513. The probable cause determination is reviewed objectively under the “totality of the circumstances,” where all information known to *163the officer at the time of the search is considered. State v. Torkelsen, 2006 ND 152, ¶ 13, 718 N.W.2d 22. The court takes into account “ ‘inferences and deductions that a trained and experienced officer makes.’ ” State v. Guthmiller, 2002 ND 116, ¶ 15, 646 N.W.2d 724 (quoting State v. Olson, 1998 ND 41, ¶ 24, 575 N.W.2d 649 and State v. Mische, 448 N.W.2d 415, 419 (N.D.1989)). While each piece of information alone may be insufficient to establish probable cause to search, “the sum total layers of information and the synthesis of what the police know, have heard, and observed as trained officers, weighed in a ‘laminated total’ may amount to probable cause.” State v. Rangeloff, 1998 ND 135, ¶ 28, 580 N.W.2d 593 (citing State v. Damron, 1998 ND 71, ¶ 7, 575 N.W.2d 912).
Ill
[¶ 22] The suppression order should be upheld because our standard of review is dispositive and, without more, Troopers Clemens and Mehrer did not have probable cause to search Doohen’s vehicle.
A
[¶ 23] This Court should affirm a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress if “there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” Graf, 2006 ND 196, ¶ 7, 721 N.W.2d 381 (quoting Thompson, 520 N.W.2d at 581). This recognizes the importance of the district court’s opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 10, 685 N.W.2d 120. On this record, the district court’s decision was supported by competent evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
[¶ 24] To the contrary, the court had ample competent evidence to support its findings. Trooper Clemens testified he saw what appeared to be syringes and butane lighters sticking out from the pockets of a tote bag when he approached Doohen’s vehicle. Although the items have no immediately incriminating character, Clemens testified that based on his training and experience, the lighters and syringes made him suspicious that Doohen was in possession of drug paraphernalia. Doohen was cooperative with Clemens except he did not want his vehicle to be searched and made no furtive movements or gestures to support Clemens’ probable cause determination. Clemens admitted that, prior to placing Doohen in the patrol car, Doohen may have told him he used the syringes to blow water when he was sculpting and blowing glass. Clemens also acknowledged the syringes were wrapped in plastic and appeared clean. In the district court’s memorandum opinion, it stated “Clemens testified he was not quite sure what the syringes were designed for and could not say whether they were medicine syringes that could be used for taking medicine and could not be hooked to a needle or whether they were hypodermic syringes to which a needle could be attached.” Although Clemens had a digital camera in his car, he did not photograph any of the evidence, nor was any of the evidence presented to the court at the time of the suppression hearing. Even after searching the vehicle and examining the evidence, the trooper could not say whether the syringes were hypodermic, which would qualify as drug paraphernalia under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.4-01(11).
[¶25] Additionally, we recognize the importance of the district court’s opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 10, 685 N.W.2d 120. Here, the district court observed Clemens’ testimony and was able to assess his credibility. Cle*164mens testified at the suppression hearing, but did not photograph or retain any of the items to present at the hearing. The court noted Clemens “seemed uncertain as to whether or not a needle could be attached to what he saw.”
[¶26] Under our standard of review, the district court had evidence to support its findings, which was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The court observed the testimony and evidence, weighed its relative credibility, and determined there was not probable cause to search Doohen’s vehicle. The suppression order should be affirmed.
B
[¶27] Troopers Clemens and Mehrer did not have probable cause to search Doo-hen’s vehicle. At the time of search, Clemens had only two pieces of information to evaluate: (1) the observation of the syringes and lighters and (2) Doohen’s explanation regarding his usage of the syringes. Instead of probable cause to search, the troopers merely had information that may have warranted further investigation. State v. Thieling, 2000 ND 106, ¶ 8, 611 N.W.2d 861 (citing State v. Lewis, 527 N.W.2d 658, 663 (N.D.1995)); see also State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 29, 34-35, 615 N.W.2d 515 (upholding a search under the plain view doctrine when the officer observed a syringe on the floor and then conducted further inquiry into whether the syringe was used for medicinal purposes). In Thieling, we stated the observation of seemingly innocent items, such as baggies, plastic, and tin foil, were merely a very thin layer in the probable cause analysis. Id. at ¶ 9. We stated “[t]he ‘relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is “innocent” or “guilty,” but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.’ ” Id. (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 243-44 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). Since baggies, plastic, and tin foil were common household goods used in packaging, but not necessarily packaging of illegal contraband, we held the items were of minimal value in the probable cause analysis. Id.
[¶ 28] In Lewis, we held evidence that the defendant had equipment consistent with indoor growing operations was insufficient to establish probable cause. 527 N.W.2d at 663. Lewis had styrofoam and fiberglass insulation on his windows and had increased his electrical usage. Id. at 660. We emphasized the equipment could be used for growing legal plants and the extra insulation is consistent with both “[wjeatherproofing one’s home for winter” and the indoor growing of legal plants. Id. at 662-63. We refused to view innocuous activities like efforts to reduce heat loss, without more, as circumstantial evidence sufficient to support probable cause. Id. at 663. That is, “suspicion, without anything more specific, does not amount to probable cause to search.” Id.
[¶ 29] Doohen’s situation is similar to those presented in Thieling and Lewis. Clemens merely observed innocuous items in Doohen’s vehicle. Clemens could not say, even after examining the syringes, that they were drug paraphernalia under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.4-01(11). Furthermore, Doohen’s explanation for the syringes, although possibly warranting further investigation, provided a perfectly legal explanation. The information available to Clemens at the time of the search was merely a very thin layer to support his probable cause determination. Taken together, the evidence did not amount to probable cause. The district court did not err by suppressing the evidence.
*165IV
[¶ 30] There was competent evidence to support the district court’s findings, the court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the information known to law enforcement at the time of the search, without more, did not constitute probable cause. Therefore, I would affirm the district court’s suppression order.
[¶ 31] DANIEL J. CROTHERS, J., agrees.