concludes support reasonable suspicion. Ante at 785. As noted above, the outstanding factors are easily grouped into three considerations: (1) Foreman’s trip from a purported “source city”; (2) Foreman’s travels on southbound Route 13 in Virginia; and (3) the fact that Foreman had one or more air fresheners hanging from his rearview mirror. 1. I find the “source city” discussion fully unconvincing. We have previously remarked that courts place too much weight on travel from alleged “source cities.” See United States v. Wilson, 953 F.2d 116, 125-26 (4th Cir.1991) (“[T]he vast number of persons coming from those ‘source cities’ relegates this factor to a relatively insignificant role.”) (citation omitted); see also Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.
recognizing anonymous tips referring to activity that is occurring at the time the tip is made that provide only innocent details of identification are less reliable and require some corroboration to provide the foundation for reasonable suspicion holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion holding that defendants arrival from source city was an insufficient foundation for reasonable suspicion and stating the circumstances describe a very large category of presumably innocent travelers holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances