guided by his experience and training.” State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 441, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994) (citations omitted). “The only requirement is a minimal level of objective justification, something more than an ‘unparticularized suspicion or hunch.’ ” Id. at 442, 446 S.E.2d at 70 (quoting Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 10). Under the “totality of the circumstances” test, we consider several factors on the part of the accused including a suspect’s nervousness or activity at an unusual hour. See State v. McClendon, 350 N.C. 630, 639, 517 S.E.2d 128, 133 (1999) (concluding that the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion because the defendant was fidgeting, sweating, breathing rapidly, and avoiding eye contact); Watkins, 337 N.C. at 443, 446 S.E.2d at 70-71 (<HOLDING>). We also take into account a defendant’s
holding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion when he saw a vehicle moving with its lights off in the parking lot of a closed business in a rural area at 300 am holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the car in which the defendant was a passenger when the officer saw the vehicle come out from behind a closed building at 330 am and the building had been recently burglarized holding that evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant operated vehicle while intoxicated when vehicle was registered to appellants mother who testified that he had vehicle on night in question appellant was found fourtenths of a mile from accident scene in rural area and police and ems personnel saw no one else in area holding that no privacy interest was invaded when the officers saw the defendants activities while he was parked in a tavern parking lot and seated in a vehicle with the console light on holding that police officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity after observing a group of men huddled around a closed store at 2 am