sir. Q And nothing [criminal] in particular with [regard to] [the juvenile] that you know of? A Other than he was wearing gang attire. Q What kind of attire was that?. A Large baggy clothes. Q Is that it? A I guess that’s it. The trial court further found there was a “reasonable, [articu-lable] suspicion that some criminal activity may have taken place” and distinguished the present case from State v. Fleming, 106 N.C. App. 165, 415 S.E.2d 782 (1992). Although labeled as findings, these determinations are actually conclusions of law, in that they require the exercise of judgment and application of legal principles. See In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675 (1997). As such, they are reviewa S.E.2d 234, 237, disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 416, 465 S.E.2d 546 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Officer Henderson did not observe
holding that to justify detention of a criminal suspect the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion holding that when a police communique has been issued on the basis of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion any authorized officer may make an investigatory stop on the basis of that bulletin even though the officer making the stop is not aware of the underlying facts holding specific articulable facts sufficient to justify a stop included a description of the defendants clothing holding that an investigatory stop must be supported by specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion holding that under article i section 7 of the hawaii constitution a police officer must have at least a reasonable basis of specific articulable facts to believe a crime has been committed to order a driver out of a car after a traffic stop