committing an illegal act but “had cause to believe” that Nicholson was trespassing. The trial court found that Detective Lockwood had a valid basis to approach Nicholson and inquire as to his presence. Detective Lockwood instructed Nicholson to “hold up.” Detective Lockwood testified that his police badge and insignia were clearly visible. Nicholson, however, ran from the scene. The majority concludes that Nicholson’s flight from the scene was not a valid basis upon which to find reasonable suspicion. I agree that a defendant’s flight, standing alone, is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. I believe, however, that a defendant’s flight is one factor that may be properly considered in examining the issue of reasonable suspicion. See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124, 120 S.Ct. 673 (<HOLDING>). The majority also identifies innocent reasons
holding nervous behavior and inconsistent story justified reasonable suspicion and subsequent search holding that nervous evasive behavior such as flight is a relevant factor in an examination of reasonable suspicion recognizing presence in a high crime area unprovoked flight and nervous evasive behavior as factors supporting a reasonable suspicion holding that nervous evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion holding that nervous behavior and failure to make eye contact did not give rise to reasonable individualized suspicion