along that route. Moreover, Deputy Ancell conceded that he did not know if Berry in fact had traveled to Kansas City that day. Not only was the additional work lacking, the investigative work performed by the police was not sufficient to corroborate an anonymous tip under the dictates of State v. Miller, supra. They merely corroborated the description of Berry’s car, the license plate, and a probable route at a particular time of day, which is insufficient to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. Moreover, simply because Berry had a previous drug conviction, and Deputy An-cell testified that he had some unelaborat-ed “intelligence” on Berry, these facts do not corroborate that he was engaged in current drug activity. See, Commonwealth v. Wimbush, 561 Pa. 368, 750 A.2d 807 (2000)(<HOLDING>). In the absence of sufficient corroboration,
holding that defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money holding warrants check on passenger before officer inquired as to registered owner of suspected stolen car was unreasonable because officer had not formed reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant was engaged in any criminal activity holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity holding an anonymous tip insufficient to support reasonable suspicion based on the fact that defendant was suspected of drug activity in his community failed to corroborate he currently was engaged in drug related activity and surveillance failed to uncover any independent information that defendant was engaged in any criminal activity holding that defendant need not establish that he was not engaged in unlawful activity under section 776012