N.M. 165, 169, 754 P.2d 542, 546 (Ct.App.1988). “Unsupported intuition is [also] insufficient.” Cohen, 103 N.M. at 562, 711 P.2d at 7. Only when traffic is heavy may an officer move a vehicle to the secondary area without reasonable suspicion. Bolton, 111 N.M. at 38, 801 P.2d at 108. 2. Tenth Circuit Cases {12} The Tenth Circuit has allowed agents, without individualized suspicion, not only to inquire of citizenship and immigration status, but have held that the agents “may briefly question individuals ‘concerning such things as vehicle ownership, cargo, destination, and travel plans.’ ” United States v. Massie, 65 F.3d 843, 848 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Rascon-Ortiz, 994 F.2d 749, 752 (10th Cir.1993)); see also United States v. Chavira, 9 F.3d 888, 889 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The stop, however, must be “brief and
holding that an employers inquiry into the reason for an employees work absences was a permissible jobrelated inquiry under the ada holding that reasonableness for qualified immunity purposes requires an objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances holding that inquiry notice exists where a reasonable investor of ordinary intelligence would have discovered the suspicious information and recognized it as suspicious holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances holding that an inquiry into trip destination is permissible even in the absence of suspicious circumstances