error, giving due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by the trial judge. Id. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, apart from determinations of reasonable suspicion to conduct investigatory stops and probable cause to perform warrantless searches, is to be upheld on appeal unless its findings of fact are clearly erroneous. See, State v. Newman, 250 Neb. 226, 548 N.W.2d 739 (1996); State v. Bowers, 250 Neb. 151, 548 N.W.2d 725 (1996). In making this determination, an appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in the evidence, but, rather, recognizes the trial court as the finder of fact and takes into consideration that it observed the witnesses. Id. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911 (1996) (<HOLDING>). ANALYSIS Legality of Stop. Chitty initially
holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error holding that determinations of reasonable suspicion for investigative stops and probable cause to perform warrantless searches should be reviewed de novo by appellate courts holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo holding appellate courts should review findings of historical fact for clear error only giving due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers while as general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal