became illegal. His brief is equivocal on this point, and at oral argument, his counsel suggested that it might have become illegal after the license checks were completed at 8:49 a.m., after the criminal history checks were completed at 9:05 a.m., or after the vehicle’s registration was confirmed at 9:10 a.m. Because Pack did not clearly present arguments in favor of one time over any of the others, we will presume he asserts that his detention became illegal at 9:10 a.m., after the last of Worley's computer checks was completed. See Sanders v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 553 F.3d 922, 926 (5th Cir.2008) (" ‘A party waives an issue if he fails to adequately brief it' on appeal.”) (quoting Audler v. CBC Innovis Inc., 519 F.3d 239, 255 (5th Cir. 2008)). Cf. Brigham, 382 F.3d at 508 (<HOLDING>). 7 . Probable cause exists where the facts and
holding that although officers observation and stop of the defendants vehicle occurred outside of the officers geographical jurisdiction the officer still had jurisdiction where the officer was requested by a state trooper to stop the suspects vehicle holding that an officer may run computer checks as part of his investigation of the circumstances that originally caused him to stop a vehicle holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction holding that it is permissible for an officer to order the occupants out of a vehicle during a lawful stop holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop