law must be maintained for every registered vehicle, that did not show compliance with the law and instead reflected an “unknown” compliance status for the vehicle. {26} Other jurisdictions have addressed analogous traffic stops based on suspected noncompliance with financial responsibility laws where, unlike this case, the appellate record contained no evidence of the statistical significance of an “unknown” compliance status report. See, e.g., United States v. Cortez-Galaviz, 495 F.3d 1203, 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 2007) (concluding that a database report of vehicle insurance status “not found” was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop in the absence of a showing of unreliability of the database); State v. Dixson, 633 S.E.2d 636, 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (<HOLDING>); Gonzalez-Gilando v. State, 306 S.W.3d 893,
holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return holding that a stop was not based on reasonable suspicion where there were no facts in the record indicating that a return of unknown made it any more likely that a vehicle was uninsured rather than fully insured 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 holding that reasonable suspicion that there is contraband in the vehicle justifies greater intrusion unrelated to the traffic stop holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law