On deciding reasonable suspicion for following too close, “[d]eciding the issue presented by these motions does not require the court to decide whether Mr. Acevedo violated [the statute]. Instead, it requires the court to decide whether Lt. Stopper had an articulable, reasonable suspicion that Mr. Acevedo had violated [it].” One second behind another car is reasonable suspicion for following too close because the circuit had already established two seconds behind was. United States v. Acevedo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126630 (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2017) (“The court does not perceive the two-second rule as a talisman. That is, it does not, when invoked, provide law enforcement officers with a foolproof rationale for justifying a traffic stop. Instead, the Tenth Circuit’s cases explain that the officer’s basis for suspecting a violation of the rule must be a ‘reasonable’ one. Salas, 756 F.3d at 1200-01.”).*

The officer here had reasonable suspicion that defendant was potentially involved in mail theft, in an area known to the police to be rife with it, by the way he was acting and juggling many packages. Defendant’s claim he was waiting for an Uber to pick him up is found not credible because he never looked at his phone which would have told him where the Uber car was. United States v. Karapetyan, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128124 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2017).*