highway to the state patrol headquarters in Eagle. However, I believe that such a move was properly within the scope of the investigatory stop in light of the trooper’s decision that the state patrol headquarters would be a better location to conduct further investigations, such as contacting a state patrol auto theft specialist who could tell the trooper where the hidden YIN could be found. Furthermore, the majority’s rejection of moving a suspect during an investigatory stop conflicts with this court’s holding in People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 407, 517 P.2d 1336, 1340 (1973). In Stevens, this court held that moving a suspect from one location to another during an investigatory stop was proper, regardless of safety concerns. See also Place, 462 U.S. at 705-06, 103 S.Ct. at 2643-44 (<HOLDING>). D. Finally, the majority cites Sharpe for its
holding that the forceable stop at issue was an investigatory stop rather than an arrest holding that during investigatory stop police may transport seized property to another location holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop holding that flight from police can help establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop