if they were huddled, just having a conversation, or merely standing in a line. Moreover, in light of the officers’ unclear testimony, it is just as likely that consistent with Wallace’s testimony, a black male, who may have been Bellflower, or who looked like Bellflower, was crossing the street a few yards from where she and McCray were standing. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court cannot credit Muniz’s claim that the three were huddled together suspiciously. Even if Bellflower was standing with Wallace and McCray, the officers still did not have a reasonable suspicion to believe that a drug transaction was occurring. Proximity to a drug dealer can be a factor that gives rise to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 342 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cruz, 909 F.2d 422, 424
holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment holding that an officers observation of exchange of small object and money in a known drug trafficking area constituted reasonable suspicion holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer holding that officers observation of a known drug dealer approaching the defendants car gave rise to reasonable suspicion