"[wle must defer to a trial court's findings of fact if those findings are supported by competent evidence in the record." People v. Pitts, 13 P.3d 1218, 1221 (Colo.2000); see also People v. Medina, 25 P.3d 1216, 1223 (Colo.2001). However, we must examine the trial court's legal conclusions de novo. See Medina, 25 P.3d at 1223. Like the trial court, we must review the totality of the cireumstances known to the police officers at the time of the encounter to determine whether the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct a search and seizure. Outlaw, 17 P.3d at 157. Therefore, we cxamine the encounter between Haley, Dunlap, Daniels and Officer Miller. First, as a preliminary matter, the police had justification to make the traffic stop. See People v. Ramos, 13 P.3d 295, 297 (Colo.2000)(<HOLDING>); People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351, 1355
holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring holding that police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation holding that where police officers had stopped a vehicle because they suspected that the motorist was intoxicated irrespective of whether the deputies were justified in detaining the motorist after he showed no signs of intoxication and even if they had not after approaching the motorist observed conditions raising a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot they were entitled to ask the motorist for permission to search his vehicle holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop