The Defendant went behind the building. Then the female and the Defendant left and entered a vehicle. The Defendant was the driver. While no one of these circumstances alone necessarily satisfies constitutional requirements, when considered in their totality, the officers had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop of defendant's vehicle. Our Supreme Court has held that articulable facts known to the officers at the inception of the investigatory stop together with any rational inferences that may be drawn from those facts must be considered when determining whether the Terry standard has been met.
Reasonable suspicion is a commonsensical proposition.
While the defendant's mere presence in a high crime area is not by itself enough to raise reasonable suspicion, an area's propensity toward criminal activity is something that an officer may consider. Therefore, we find that the officers' stop of the defendant's vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion. Defendant objects to the admission of the .357 Magnum handgun found in the glove compartment contending that such evidence was the fruit of an unlawful warrantless search of his vehicle. Here, the officers frisked the defendant and the female passenger. Thereafter, the defendant grew belligerent and was placed in the rear seat of the vehicle.