Frazier, 421 A.2d 546, 550 (R.I.1980), this Court has never held that absolute certainty that an object exchanged was drugs is essential. See, e.g., State v. Travis, 568 A.2d 316, 321 (R.I.1990) ("By its very definition the possibility of error is always inherent in the determination of probable cause.”); Frazier, 421 A.2d at 550 ("When the arrest or search is made when the police do not know that a crime has been committed, more and better evidence is needed to prove that probable cause exists for the arrest than is the case when the police do know that a crime has been -committed.”). Other jurisdictions appear to be in agreement, and have held probable cause to exist in circumstances similar to the case at bar. See, e.g., United States v. White, 655 F.2d 1302, 1303-04 (D.C.Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238, 596
holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile holding that an officers observation of exchange of small object and money in a known drug trafficking area constituted reasonable suspicion holding that the defendants proximity as an automobile passenger to unconcealed contraband provided the officer probable cause to arrest the defendant absent other countervailing facts holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself holding that probable cause was established when an officer experienced in narcotics investigations saw a woman who was a passenger in an automobile receive from the driver a small unidentified object in exchange for money