trunk, and (3) based on his observation of a food bag and several food wrappers on the floorboard of the car and a large pile of clothes on the backseat, Pierce inferred that Orsolini and his passenger had been traveling without stopping to eat or change clothes. None of these individual circumstances is sufficient by itself to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but when combined with the six factors that the district court did consider, we believe that they are sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that “factual inferences drawn by the law enforcement officer” must be given “due weight” in analyzing the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266,-, 122 S.Ct. 744, 752, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (<HOLDING>). This is admittedly a close case. But in
holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that an undercover agent is not an accomplice as long as the agent does not bring about the crime but merely obtains evidence to be used against those engaged in crime holding that the following circumstances supported a finding that a border patrol agent had a reasonable suspicion to believe that arvizu was engaged in illegal activity 1 arvizu slowed his vehicle down when he saw the agent 2 arvizu failed to acknowledge the agent 3 the knees of the children in the car were in a raised position 4 the children in the car waved to the agent in an unusual manner 5 the littleused road arvizu was driving on was commonly used by smugglers 6 arvizu approached the area at approximately the same time that agents changed shifts and 7 minivans are often used by smugglers holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes