F.2d 726, 727 (10th Cir.1991). An officer has probable cause to arrest if, under the totality of circumstances, he “learned of facts and circumstances through reasonably trustworthy information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person arrested.” Vazquez-Pulido, 155 F.3d at 1216 (quoting United States v. Guerrero-Hernandez, 95 F.3d 983, 986 (10th Cir.1996)). Although probable cause need not be based on facts sufficient for a finding of guilt, it requires “more than mere suspicion.” Id. (citing United States v. Hansen, 652 F.2d 1374, 1388 (10th Cir.1981)). Association with persons suspected of criminal conduct or nearness to the site of illegal activity does not alone suffice. See id.; see also Hansen, 652 F.2d at 1390 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, “probable cause is lacking when
holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest holding that a state courts finding that the prosecutor did not have probable cause to go forward with the charges did not necessarily mean that probable cause to make the initial arrest was lacking holding that merely traveling with drug dealers did not create probable cause at time of defendants arrest