search and sniff. That refusal obviously cannot provide the basis for supporting reasonable suspicion. See also Wood, 106 F.3d at 946; Palenkas, 188 Ariz. at 212, 933 P.2d at 1280; Ballard, 617 N.W.2d at 842, ¶ 17. ¶ 52 If Officer Craft did not have reasonable suspicion sufficient to detain Appellant at the conclusion of the traffic stop, he certainly did not gain any additional insights to arrive at such a conclusion during this extremely brief consensual encounter. If he did have reasonable suspicion, then he was obligated to act on it before telling Appellant he could leave. Johnson, — U.S. at —, 129 S.Ct. at 786 (stating that once reasonable suspicion is aroused, police officers must be positioned to act instantly on that suspicion); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>). He failed to do so and assumed the risk that
holding that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based on his presence in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking and his flight upon seeing police officers 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 recognizing a cause of action under  1983 based upon the discriminatory denial of police services holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances recognizing the need for police officers to take swift action based upon onthespot observations that lead to reasonable suspicion