condition which is consistent with [criminal activity] will not predicate reasonable suspicion, if that factual condition occurs even more frequently among the law abiding public.... ”). The Government also argues that El-masry’s deletion of five or six telephone numbers from his cellular phone while he waited for the plane to reach the gate “could have been interpreted as destroying evidence^]” Gov’t Br. at 16. This conclusion, however, is utter speculation; the Government’s Rule 56.1 Statement does not assert that Elmasry made any telephone calls during or after the flight, and the record gives no indication that Elmas-ry suspected he was about to be caught sufficient to imbue his acts with a suggestion of guilt. Cf. United States v. Gomez, 633 F.2d 999, 1002, 1008 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Most troubling, the heavy reliance which the
holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house holding that officers fear of imminent destruction of evidence may justify a warrantless entry holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence holding computer database report indicating vehicle was stolen provided officers with probable cause to make warrantless arrest of driver holding that sounds indicating destruction of evidence after officers announced themselves and began to kick and bang on apartment door helped generate probable cause