by the trial court’s findings and such findings will not be disturbed on appeal where supported by competent evidence), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1096, 130 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1995). After careful consideration of the evidence presented to the trial court, we conclude the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence. We next consider whether the findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusion that the investigative stop was lawful. When determining whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop, the trial court may properly consider such factors as: (1) activity at an unusual hour; (2) nervousness of an individual; (3) an area’s disposition 8 (1983); State v. Tillett and State v. Smith, 50 N.C. App. 520, 524, 274 S.E.2d 361, 364 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Here, Defendant and Tucker were observed
holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop holding that officers may consistent with the fourth amendment conduct a brief investigatory stop when they have a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot holding that a police officers suspicion that a car did not belong in a particular area in the early morning does not meet the requirement that a stop cannot be made without an  articulable and reasonable  suspicion of some criminal wrongdoing holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support an investigatory stop of a vehicle where the defendant and driver were observed loitering at a closed shopping center shortly before midnight no other vehicles were in the parking lot and the two men abruptly and hurriedly returned to their vehicle which was parked out of general public view holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support the investigatory stop of a vehicle in view of the time of day and the officers prior knowledge of reports of criminal activity in the area