to Officer Chih that cast doubt on the reliability of Ms. Thompson-Wright's information. The problem is not so much that Officer Chih failed to adequately scrutinize the basis of Ms. Thompson-Wright's knowledge, but rather that he failed to give sufficient weight to her own admission that the basis of her knowledge was either neighborhood rumor or conjecture or an anonymous source whose credibility and reliability were unknown. This court has never held that it should ignore facts that tend to undermine reasonable suspicion. See Pridgen v. United States, 134 A.3d 297, 301 (D.C. 2016) ("To determine whether police officers had reasonable suspicion, a court must review the totality of the circumstances present.” (emphasis added)); cf. Ramsey v. United States, 73 A.3d 138, 147 (D.C. 2013) (<HOLDING>). 5 . D.C. Code § 5-117.Ó5 makes it a crime for
holding that where officers had reasonable suspicion of a drug offense seizing defendants luggage for 38 minutes under terry did not mature into an unlawful arrest 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 a troopers request for a driver and passengers identification and his questioning of them did not violate the fourth amendment because he observed an actual traffic violation after stopping the defendants vehicle and thus his reasonable suspicion was not dispelled holding that a seizure was unlawful because certain facts had dispelled the officers reasonable suspicion holding that a seizure could occur under these facts but hot deciding whether a seizure occurred because of factual disputes