Robert G. Lindauer, Jr., State v. Pearson and State v. McClendon: Determining Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion from the Totality of the Circumstances in North Carolina, 78 N.C. L. Rev. 831, 849 (2000)). We conclude that, while a single one of the factors relied upon by the law enforcement officers and cited by the trial court might not in itself have been sufficient to sustain a reasonable suspicion that criminal conduct was underway, and may well have been consistent with innocent behavior, the composite of the factors as detailed in the trial court’s findings of fact adequately sustained a reasonable and articu-lable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and thus supported the trial court’s conclusion of law to that effect. Parker, 137 N.C. App. at 600-01, 530 S.E.2d at 304-05 (<HOLDING>); State v. Fox, 58 N.C. App. 692, 695, 294
holding that the trial court properly denied a fathers motion for attorney fees where there was no misconduct by the mother holding the trial court properly denied the defendants motion to suppress where the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot holding that where the trial court implicitly denied the defendants motion to suppress but neither expressly denied the motion nor explained its ruling claim of error could not be reviewed holding that defendants motion to suppress was properly denied because the actual items seized fell within the valid portions of the warrant holding that the defendants motion for discharge was premature and thus properly denied by the trial court