of the person detained, the purpose of the stop, and the amount of physical intrusion on the suspect’s liberty. State v. Acrey, 148 Wn.2d 738, 746-47, 64 P.3d 594 (2003). ¶19 We must determine if the officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under the totality of circumstances to support the stops of Sandoz and Fuentes. If the officers did not, the evidence uncovered from the stops must be suppressed. See State v. Doughty, 170 Wn.2d 57, 65, 239 P.3d 573 (2010). Reasonable suspicion did not .justify a Terry investigative stop of Sandoz ¶20 Under the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity individualized to Sandoz to justify his Terry stop. See State v. Thompson, 93 Wn.2d 838, 841, 613 P.2d 525 (1980) (<HOLDING>). ¶21 The police relied on five facts to
holding that nervous behavior and failure to make eye contact did not give rise to reasonable individualized suspicion recognizing that the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it and that the individualized assessment  must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and be adequate to permit meaningful appellate review holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case holding that suspicion must be individualized recognizing that the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it and that the individualized assessment  must provide a rationale tailored to the particular ease at hand and be adequate to permit meaningful appellate review