that Officer Pritchard “knew the area of Chandler and Amanda Place to be a well known drug location with a high drug activity.” Thus, given the trial court’s finding that Officer Pritchard “knew the area of Chandler and Amanda Place to be a well known drug location with a high drag activity,” the first basis upon which the dissent attempts to distinguish Butler is not persuasive. Secondly, the dissent points out that, “as to the alleged transaction, Officer Pritchard did not see any exchange.” Although the dissent suggests that this factor, along with others, serves to “render Butler inapplicable to this appeal,” we do not agree. The existence of evidence tending to suggest, as the trial court found, that a hand-to-hand drag transaction had occurred in 5 S.E.2d 782, 785 (1992) (<HOLDING>). However, the trial court’s findings disclose
holding that reasonable suspicion justifies an investigatory detention holding that an officers diligent pursuit of an investigation during the detention is a factor in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop holding that the fact the defendant matched an anonymous tips description was seen in a high crime area and walked away when police approached was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion holding that the fact that defendant was standing in an open area between two apartment buildings and walked away upon the approach of law enforcement officers did not justify an investigatory detention holding that information that a suspicious person wearing baggy clothes had been seen in a drugridden area and that he walked away upon the approach of law enforcement officers did not suffice to support an investigatory detention