fatal to the reasonable suspicion analysis nor completely undermines the officers’ testimony, which the district court found credible. See United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir.2013) (“[I]t is the role of the district court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial motion to suppress.”). Lieutenant Hart was armed with sufficient knowledge to form a reasonable suspicion that the Impala was involved in criminal activity even without a description of its color. He reasonably relied on the information provided by the Cl, whom he knew to be reliable and truthful, and by Detective Bacon, who recently had participated in surveillance involving a controlled purchase by the Cl in the same area. See United States v. Harris, 39 F.3d 1262, 1269 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The Cl informed Lieutenant Hart (through
holding that there is a rebuttable presumption that information imparted by a citizen informant is generally reliable holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police holding that an unverified tip from a known informant was sufficiently reliable to justify a terry stop and frisk holding that information of criminal activity given by a known reliable informant is enough to sustain a terry stop holding that tip from known reliable informant that was immediately verifiable at the scene could form basis for reasonable suspicion and forcible terry stop