that he continued his search of Appellant’s person and found a marijuana pipe, another jewelry bag containing marijuana, and prescription pills. On cross-examination, Officer Homer stated that there was a movie theater and a parking lot in the vicinity of where he made contact with Appellant. He admitted he did not know what crime he thought Appellant was going to commit and stated “that’s why they have a loitering and prowling statute.” Officer Homer testified that Appellant and his companion were n CA 2000) (finding police did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify a stop when the officer saw the defendant “seemingly intoxicated,” walking down the road in a high crime area with a beer in her hand); State v. Robinson, 740 So.2d 9, 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because the State did not carry
recognizing anonymous tips referring to activity that is occurring at the time the tip is made that provide only innocent details of identification are less reliable and require some corroboration to provide the foundation for 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 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 stop of appellant was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion where anonymous 911 caller said that she had seen suspect pull gun out of his pocket 911 caller described suspect and suspects location responding officer located appellant near stated location appellant matched description and no one else in vicinity matched description holding that in a high crime area unprovoked headlong flight from police can form the basis for reasonable suspicion under terry