cause does not require legal certainty, nor does it demand that all the facts in the officer’s possession point in only one direction.” Zappa v. Gonzalez, 819 F.3d 1002, 1005 (7th Cir. 2016); see Fox v. Hayes, 600 F.3d 819, 833 (7th Cir. 2010) (observing that “it does no h Cir. 2003) (same). And Raisbeck reasonably could have thought that the meeting’s short duration suggested that its intended purpose was transactional, not social. See United States v. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004, 1013 (7th Cir. 2011) (explaining that police officers reasonably had believed that short meetings of one to five minutes were indicative of drug dealing). The search of Nicole before she entered the Jimmy John’s also provided some corroboration. Cf. United States v. Scott, 731 F.3d 659, 665 (7th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sidwell, 440 F.3d 865, 869
recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted recognizing that a properly executed controlled buy is generally a reliable indicator as to the presence of illegal drug activity internal quotation marks omitted holding that a foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights under the due process clause or otherwise internal quotation marks omitted recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted