the Officers asked the defendant if he had a gun. He said he did, and they found it. It appears that this matter essentially was — well, at least initially was a consensual encounter. No attempt to flee. No attempt to mislead. A very straight forward encounter on both sides, it would appear. And very early on, the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime having been committed, and the defendant having committed it. In fact, the suspicion was increased substantially when the defendant acknowledged that he had a gun. Therefore, it would appear that the consensual encounter masqueraded as a Terry stop. In other words, the district court ruled that the entire encounter did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the initial encountér was consensual, 2 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Mitchell also asserts that because flight and
holding that an officers observation of exchange of small object and money in a known drug trafficking area constituted reasonable suspicion holding that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to seize the defendant based on an anonymous call to a drug hotline about drug sales in a known hot spot stating that to allow the tip alone to establish reasonable suspicion would allow officers carte blanche to search every person in the vicinity holding that officers observation of a known drug dealer approaching the defendants car gave rise to reasonable suspicion holding that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun  without any corroborating evidence  did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing justifying the officers stop and frisk of that person holding an anonymous tip insufficient to support reasonable suspicion based on the fact that defendant was suspected of drug activity in his community failed to corroborate he currently was engaged in drug related activity and surveillance failed to uncover any independent information that defendant was engaged in any criminal activity