that the detectives observed drug transactions being conducted, or that the area was known for drug trafficking. We must, therefore, assess Detective Lockwood’s conduct in light of his actual testimony. As far as the record indicates, Detective Lockwood seized Defendant on the basis of three observed facts: 1) Defendant’s proximity to an area being investigated for gang activity; 2) Defendant’s refusal to “hold up” when told to do so; and 3) Defendant’s rapid flight from his encounter with Detective Lockwood. With respect to the first of these observed facts, we hold that an individual’s proximity to an area being investigated for gang activity is not sufficient, without more, to justify an investigatory stop. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979) (<HOLDING>); State v. Lawson, 929 S.W.2d 406, 408-09
holding that prosecutors statement that crime shouldnt go on was simply a way of saying that defendant had engaged in criminal conduct and should not be permitted to continue that criminal conduct holding that defendants presence in neighborhood frequented by drug users was not in and of itself a basis for concluding he was engaged in criminal conduct holding that endangering conduct need not be engaged in in the childs presence holding that defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money 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