to determine preci 62, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1902, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), the Court held that probable cause was not established by the mere fact that the defendant spoke to a number of known narcotics addicts over a period of eight hours where the arresting officer was completely ignorant regarding the content of the conversation and saw nothing pass between the defendant and the addicts. See also United States v. Chadwick, 532 F.2d 773, 784 (1st Cir.1976), aff'd on other grounds 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) (mere act of picking up suspected drug traffickers at the train station and helping them load a contraband-laden footlocker into ear does not, without more, constitute probable cause); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 593, 68 S.Ct. 222, 228, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, the cases in which courts find
holding that the determination whether a crime is a necessarily included lesser offense of another crime is made by examining the elements of the crimes that must be proved in order to sustain a conviction holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways holding that in the conviction and sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode it is the intent of the legislature that there be a separate conviction and sentence for each criminal offense unless one of the offenses is a degree of the other a necessarily included lesser offense subsumed in the other or both offenses are identical holding that the argument that one who accompanies a criminal to a crime rendezvous cannot be assumed to be a bystander forceful enough in some circumstances is farfetched when the meeting is not secretive or in a suspicious hideout  and where the alleged substantive crime is one which does not necessarily involve any act visibly criminal