at night a few days after a homicide occurred in the area, the driver slumping down in his seat either before or after spotting law enforcement, driving in a peculiar, although entirely legal, manner, and the fact that defendant’s car was not registered to an address in the immediate area. 408 Md. 490, 970 A.2d 894 (2009). The Court reasoned that the combination of factors, viewed in their totality, are no more indicative of criminal activity than any one factor assessed individually. [The officer] testified only that he considered what he observed to be suspicious; he did not illuminate how his training and experience caused him to believe that what he observed revealed possible criminal activity. Id. at 511, 970 A.2d 894. See also Ransome v. State, 373 Md. 99, 816 A.2d 901 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Crosby and Ransome, in Graham v.
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 holding that an officer stopped the defendant when he ordered the defendant to take his hand out of his pocket holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions holding that a generalized suspicion of those questioned in highcrime area was insufficient to justify terry frisk holding that law enforcement did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to either stop or frisk the defendant when the defendant was in a highcrime area had a large bulge in his pants pocket and acted nervously when approached by officers