Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52, 61 L. Ed: 2d 357, 362-63 (1979). Here, however, there was an additional circumstance— defendant’s immedia 51 S.E.2d 147, 149-50 (2001) (stating that the officer had reasonable grounds to frisk defendant “based upon the officers’ familiarity with defendant, defendant’s presence in a specific area known for drug activity, and defendant’s having been illegally parked”); State v. Willis, 125 N.C. App. 537, 542, 481 S.E.2d 407, 411 (1997) (stating that “[t]he Butler Court held that, when an individual’s presence at a suspected drug area is coupled with evasive action, police may form, from those actions, the quantum of reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigatory stop”); State v. Watson, 119 N.C. App. 395, 397-99, 458 S.E.2d 519, 521-23 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The remarkable similarity between the facts
holding that officer had reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity when a defendant with a history of drug involvement while in an area in which numerous drug arrests had been made attempted to enter a convenience store and to swallow the drugs in his possession upon the approach of law enforcement officers holding that defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money holding that while some conduct consistent with drug activity may not arouse suspicion in an average citizen an officers training and experience of how drug crimes are committed may provide the officer with a different perspective and should factor into the rubric when determining the reasonableness of the officers suspicion holding an anonymous tip insufficient to support reasonable suspicion based on the fact that defendant was suspected of drug activity in his community failed to corroborate he currently was engaged in drug related activity and surveillance failed to uncover any independent information that defendant was engaged in any criminal activity holding that the fact that the defendant did not handle the drugs is not dispositive of his involvement in drug dealing