lot. The defendant did not take any unusual or suspicious actions while on the lot. The transaction took place at approximately 6:00 p.m. so the time of day raises no particular red flags. The defendant cites State v. Dye, 272 [S.W.3d] 879 and State v. Sch[mutz], 100 [S.W.3d] 876 in support of his position. Based on the holdings therein and on the facts of this case, the court does not believe that the officers had reasonable suspicion or articu[l]able facts to justify a stop of defendant’s vehicle. We disagree. The motion court is correct that Peery’s mere presence in the shopping center lot after hours was not a sufficient enough fact, standing alone, to give the police reasonable suspicion that he had engaged in, or was engaging in, illegal activity. Schmutz, 100 S.W.3d at 880 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Dye, 272 S.W.3d 879, 881
holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop holding that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle solely because the vehicle drove onto a lot after hours and then left in a hurry holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle