circumstances that supported reasonable suspicion, the trial court also considered the fact that the driver of the Jeep slumped down as the officer drove by. Again, this behavior understandably raised concerns in the officer’s mind about the driver and, because the vehicle was parked illegally, justified the officer’s inquiry of the driver. However, nothing in the behavior that the officer observed — the driver’s activity — connected with anything the officer subsequently observed about Sandoz to suggest that Sandoz engaged in criminal activity. ¶29 The trial court also cited the fact that Sandoz was visiting the apartment of a suspected drug dealer late at night in a high-crime area. However, without more, this fact does not justify a Terry stop. See Doughty, 170 Wn.2d at 62-63, 60 (<HOLDING>). Other facts must exist to suggest criminal
holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it holding noknock entry justified where officers had reasonable suspicion that entering drug stash house would be dangerous and drug dealer frequenting house could not be found elsewhere holding magistrate could infer that evidence of drugs or paraphernalia would be located in experienced drug dealers home holding police may not seize a person who visits a suspected drug house late at night and who stays for only two minutes based only on neighbors complaints of shortstay traffic and where there is no actual evidence of drugs controlled buys reports of known drug users or dealers frequenting the house and so forth holding that reasonable suspicion justified a terry stop of the defendant when she was walking and talking with known drug dealers who were known to be at the scene to buy and sell cocaine