violation.”). [¶ 15.] When the United States Supreme Court recently addressed the review of reasonable-suspicion determinations, it required that the appellate court: [L]ook at the “totality of the circumstances” of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting legal wrongdoing. This process allows offi cers to draw on their own experience and specialized tra r for methamphetamine traffic. [¶ 18.] While each of these factors, in and of themselves, may have been susceptible to an innocent explanation, that is not the test. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273, 122 S.Ct. at 751, 151 L.Ed.2d 740. An officer “need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.” Id. at 277, 122 S.Ct. at 753, 151 L.Ed.2d 740. See also Lebrun, 261 F.3d at 733 (<HOLDING>).- The officer’s observations and experience,
holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer holding that coming from the wrong neighborhood does not give rise to reasonable suspicion holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics