hands into Defendant’s vehicle took evasive action of the type that supported a finding of reasonable suspicion in Butler upon observing Officer Pritchard’s approach. The fact that the evasive action was taken by the two pedestrians, rather than Defendant, in the immediate aftermath of their encounter with Defendant created a reasonable basis, given the facts of this case, for believing that all three of these individuals were engaged in criminal activity that justified further investigative activity by Officer Pritchard. After all, the issue is not whether Defe t that defendant’s companion rapidly moved away after looking in an observing officer’s direction was relevant to a “reasonable suspicion” determination); Commonwealth v. Moses, 408 Mass. 136, 142, 557 N.E.2d 14, 15-18 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the two pedestrians fled in the
holding that even if an officers stop of a defendant who was on foot was unlawful the search of a parked car was justified by a different officer observing a gun magazine in plain view in the car holding that police officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity after observing a group of men huddled around a closed store at 2 am holding that a group of men standing with known drug traffickers who fled when officers approached established reasonable suspicion holding that the fact that a member of a group of men other than the defendant jumped over a wall and hid something upon the arrival of law enforcement officers was relevant to the reasonable suspicion inquiry holding that the fact that a group of men surrounding a car parked in a marked bus stop dispersed upon the approach of investigating officers was relevant to a reasonable suspicion determination