defendants’ story was not credible: Why go biking in Vermont when you can bike in Arizona? However, October is prime foliage season in Vermont, and a plan to bike there hardly seems suspicious at that time of year. Contrast Chhien, 266 F.3d at 4-7 (conflicting stories were given to police questions by passenger and driver, a consensual frisk revealed $2,000 r Missouri traffic law, I conclude that Officer Crivello did not have reasonable suspicion for holding the defendants until the canine arrived. While Officer Crivel-lo’s hunch turned out to be true, the fact that the defendants were from a source state heading across the country for a bike trip on a known drug pipeline do not give rise to reasonable suspicion because too many people fit this description. See Yousif, 308 F.3d at 828 (<HOLDING>); see generally Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438,
holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute holding that the facts that defendant had outofstate license plates and was traveling on a highway that was a known drug trafficking corridor alone cannot justify the stop recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking holding that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based on his presence in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking and his flight upon seeing police officers holding that travel on a known drug corridor did not create reasonable suspicion because the factor was one of several applicable to a considerable number of those traveling for perfectly legitimate purposes