history....” Klaucke, 595 F.3d at 26. Here, similarly, we find that Foley’s inability (or unwillingness) to provide his Social Security number, combined with his initial attempt to avoid contact with the police, provided reasonable grounds for Collins and Kiely to investigate his criminal history. The fact that the troopers detained Foley for as much as one hour while performing the warrant check is also not problematic, especially as the facts reveal that any delay was largely caused by the troopers’ attempts to confirm the warrant’s validity. “The excessive length of [Foley’s] detention arose not because the officers engaged in dilatory tactics, but, instead, because their investigative efforts ... failed to dispel the suspicion that gave rise to the stop.” McCarthy, 77 F.3d at 531 (<HOLDING>). We note that Foley does not argue that the
holding that a seventyfive minute terry stop was reasonable holding that information of criminal activity given by a known reliable informant is enough to sustain a terry stop holding that the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a socalled terry stop terry v ohio 392 us 1 88 sct 1868 20 led2d 889 1968 and applying a reasonable suspicion standard holding that 20 minute detention under the circumstances of the ease was not arrest holding that the fact that an investigatory stop took place in a high crime area is pertinent to a terry analysis