S.E.2d at 666)). While we acknowledge that many of the factors offered by the State seem innocent when viewed in isolation, there is evidence to support the trial court’s finding of reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop given the totality of the surrounding circumstances. In evaluating whether reasonable suspicion existed for Deputy Owens to prolong the traffic stop, the trial court first noted the large sum of money found in Moore’s pocket, finding it was unusual and therefore suspicious for an unemployed person to carry such a large amount of cash. We agree with the trial court that, under the circumstances of this case, the presence of a large amount of cash can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the trial court focused on
holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law holding that even a de minimis extension of a traffic stop is unconstitutional absent reasonable suspicion holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop holding that the discovery of 2000 in cash during a traffic stop supported a finding of reasonable suspicion holding this framework applies whether the traffic stop is based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion