[¶ 1] The State appealed from á district court order granting Dustin Lark’s motion to suppress evidence. We reverse. ■ •
I.
[¶2] On or about September 6, 2016, Ward County Narcotics Task Force Officer Jason Bambenek observed a black Dodge1 Charger traveling east bound in the west bound lane near 36th Avenue NE in Minot, near North Broadway. Officer Andy Mehlhoff of the Minot Police Department initiated a traffic stop for the traffic violation at the direction of Bambenek, as Bam-benek was traveling in an unmarked patrol vehicle. The Charger continued for a few blocks before coming to a stop.
[¶3] Shortly after the stop, Mehlhoff determined Lark had a suspended Oregon driver’s license and a valid’North Dakota driver’s license. Bambenek instructed Lark to step out of the vehicle because Bambenek saw what he believed to be a “snort tube,” made from a rolled up ten dollar bill, and crack cocaine in the front passenger area of the vehicle. Lark was handcuffed, advised of his Miranda rights, and searched by Mehlhoff.
[¶ 4] The search of Lark resulted in two cell phones, approximately $8,400 in cash, and a rolled up dollar bill with a “burnt tape” or a “brown burn mark” on it. Lark was then placed in the patrol vehicle and his vehicle was searched by Bambenek. During the stop, Mehlhoff discovered the car was not registered in Lark’s name; it was registered to Victor Wakefield. Lark informed the officers he had recently purchased the vehicle from “Richard.” Later in the stop, but before the driving under suspension (DUS) citation was issued, the officers discovered Richard Hose was also listed as a second registered owner.
[¶ 5] While Lark was detained in the back of Mehlhoffs squad car, Bambenek searched his vehicle. The search revealed a ■third cell phone, a letter containing a birth certificate of another person, and various other collectibles. Approximately 24 minutes into the stop, Bambenek informed Mehlhoff the field tests for narcotics were inconclusive.
[¶ 6] Approximately 28 minutes into the stop, Mehlhoff advised Bambenek that he would get started on issuing the DUS citation while Bambenek continued the search of Lark’s vehicle. Lark was then searched a second time for approximately two minutes and placed back in Mehlhoffs squad car.
[¶7] Mehlhoff issued the DUS citation approximately 42 minutes into the traffic stop and informed Lark he would be free to leave after signing the promise to appear unless something else was found in the vehicle.
[¶ 8] Approximately 47-48 minutes into the stop, after issuing the citation, Bambe-nek asked Mehlhoff to contact dispatch to see if any of the suspicious items found in Lark’s trunk were stolen. Some of the items identified during the search included a letter that was not addressed to or written by Lark, a birth certificate, a coin collection, and other various, collectibles. Approximately 51 minutes into the stop, Bambenek located Suboxene in the headliner by the driver’s seat.
[¶ 9] Lark was arrested for unlawful possession of a schedule III drug with intent to deliver. Lark filed a motion to suppress evidence, and the State opposed the motion. The district court held a hearing on the suppression motion at which one of the officers testified. Both parties questioned the officer and filed post-hearing briefs. The district court granted Lark’s motion to suppress.
II.
[¶ 10] On appeal, the State argues the district court erred by granting Lark’s motion to suppress evidence.
[¶ 11] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, section 8, of the North Dakota Constitution, protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Kaul,
[¶ 12] This Court reviews a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress as follows:
[W]e give deference to the district court’s findings of fact and we resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affir-mance. We will not reverse a district court decision on a motion to suppress ... if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the court’s findings, and if the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law.
State v. Reis,
[¶ 13] Neither party disputes Lark was lawfully stopped when he was pulled over for driving in the wrong lane. As this Court has previously stated, “traffic violations, even if considered common or minor, constitute prohibited conduct and, therefore, provide officers with requisite suspicion for conducting investigatory stops.” State v. Stadsvold,
[¶ 14] The district court found the initial search was permissible under the automobile exception; however, the district court also found probable cause ceased to exist after receiving the inconclusive field test results of suspected crack cocaine.
[¶ 15] We agree the search of Lark’s vehicle was proper under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. However, we disagree probable cause evaporated with the inconclusive test result.
[¶ 16] Under the automobile exception, law enforcement may search for illegal contraband without a warrant when probable cause exists. State v. Doohen,
[¶ 17] In this case, Mehlhoff initiated a traffic stop based on information received from Bambenek. During the stop, Bambe-nek discovered, in plain view, what he thought to be drug paraphernalia and crack cocaine on the passenger seat and floor of Lark’s vehicle. Based on these facts, there was probable cause to'believe narcotic activity was afoot.- Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances, the warrantless search of Lark’s vehicle was justified under the automobile exception.
[¶ 18] Lark argued, and the district court agreed, the duration of the stop was problematic. However, the dispositive question concerning application of the automobile exception is whether probable cause supported the search. State v. Sommer,
[¶ 19] The district court found the continued search of the vehicle after the inconclusive narcotics test to be problematic. However, an inconclusive field test does not eliminate probable cause when considered • with the other factors present. “When, determining whether there is probable cause, the evidence should not be considered individually, but as a collective whole.” Doohen,
[¶ 20] The district court appeared to rely on the subjective view of the officers rather than objectively review whether there was ¡probable causé to search. From the officers’ body camera footage and testimony at the suppression hearing, it appears the officers subjectively viewed the inconclusive test result as a bar to probable cause. Nevertheless, we conclude there,, was probable cause to search. The test for probable cause is an objective standard based on the totality of the circumstances. See State v. Washington,
[¶ 21] Probable cause does not require the officer to possess knowledge of facts sufficient to establish guilt; all that is necessary is knowledge that would furnish a prudent person with reasonable grounds for believing a violation has occurred. State v. Berger,
III.
. [¶ 22] The district court erred when it determined probable cause to search ceased upon receiving the inconclusive drug test result without considering the totality of the circumstances in an objective manner. We reverse the district court’s order , granting, Lark’s motion to suppress evidence,.