facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity.” Id.; see also United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) (investigatory stops must be justified by some objective manifestation that person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity). It is ' reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to stop an automobile and to detain the driver of that automobile to check his or her license and registration where “there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that” the driver “is unlicensed or the automobile is not registered.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106,
holding that police officers sued in their official capacity are not liable for a violation of a privacy interest where the police department did not have a policy of deliberately failing to train its officers with respect to the confidentiality of records holding only that persons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at unbridled discretion of police officers holding that no detention occurred when the officers had not delayed or interfered with the normal processing of the package holding that individuals have no expectation of privacy in their license registration or insurance documents and citing outofstate cases that have held that individuals do not have a privacy interest in their registration records holding that police officers charge to protect the public differentiated them from the public