the area where the encounter occurred as “known for drug trafficking.” This conclusion is likewise unsupported by the proof adduced at the suppression hearing. Nevertheless, the dissent concluded: “the encounter occurred late at night in an area known for drug trafficking. Only moments earlier, Detective Lockwood ... had witnessed a number of hand-to-hand drug transactions.... It is my opinion that when the defendant ran, the Detective had reasonable suspicion to pursue and further investigate.” Because the determination of the constitutionality of a seizure is so fact-intensive, we cannot overstate the importance of an accurate assessment of the proof as drawn from the actual evidence adduced at the trial court level. The proof in this case simply does not support a fin rim.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). And, as previously indicated, an individual’s
holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop suspect seen driving late at night only a short distance from the area in which a crime had been committed holding that the fact that an investigatory stop took place in a high crime area is pertinent to a terry analysis holding that an areas reputation for criminal activity alone cannot justify an investigatory stop holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop holding that ones presence in a high crime area late at night without more will not justify an investigatory stop