omitted). The government does not dispute that a seizure occurred when the officers frisked Mitchell. However, at this juncture, the officers had specific and articulable facts which gave rise to reasonable suspicion. At the point in time when the officers conducted the frisk, they had received an anonymous tip that six black males, dressed in dark clothing, were firing shots in the Auburn Oaks Apartment complex. Within several minutes of the call, they encountered Mitchell, a lone black male, at the complex. And, most important, Mitchell acknowledged that he had a weapon on him. Considering the totality of these circumstances, the officers were not only entitled to investigate further, but also to ensure their safety in the process by removing the gun. See Foster, 376 F.3d at 586 (<HOLDING>). Mitchell argues on appeal that the district
holding that police may conduct a patdown search upon reasonable suspicion that a person is carrying a weapon holding that defendants request to call his mother to get an attorney was an invocation of miranda rights requiring that further questioning must end holding that patdown did not end the officers reasonable suspicion of the defendant and that to have sent him on his way without brief further questioning would have been unreasonable inept police work holding that a police officers suspicion that a car did not belong in a particular area in the early morning does not meet the requirement that a stop cannot be made without an  articulable and reasonable  suspicion of some criminal wrongdoing holding in case where claim was that the decedent would have survived his stroke if an ambulance had been sent when first summoned that the public duty doctrine barred a suit alleging negligent and inept failure to dispatch an ambulance