below and develop a factual record in support of his argument. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶ 50, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant did both, and we therefore turn to an analysis of Defendant’s state constitutional argument. {23} Under our State Constitution, Officer Thatcher could ask questions about narcotics and weapons only if he had developed independent, reasonable suspicion giving rise to such questions. See Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 24, 144 N.M. 37, 183 P.3d 922. The only basis for suspicion of criminal activity that the State articulated in the district court involved Defendant’s demeanor when Officer Thatcher approached the vehicle and requested the driver’s documentation. Officer Thatcher testified that Defen 2, 131 P.3d 1286 (<HOLDING>). {24} To summarize, Defendant was detained at
holding that suspicion must be individualized holding that nervous evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion holding that a nervous and possibly furtive demeanor was insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion to detain holding nervous behavior and inconsistent story justified reasonable suspicion and subsequent search holding that nervous behavior and failure to make eye contact did not give rise to reasonable individualized suspicion