E.D.N.C.: “[R]easonable suspicion need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.” Navarette

A brief meeting for what could only be described by the officer, in his experience, was likely a hand-to-hand sale in a high crime area reasonable suspicion for a stop. “Other suggested explanations by defendant, such as that defendant may have been worried about the high crime nature of the area, while possible, do not rule out the plausible explanation supported by the totality of the circumstances. See Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 403, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014) (“[R]easonable suspicion need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.”) (quotations omitted).” United States v. Branch, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205474 (E.D. N.C. Nov. 26, 2019).

“Viewing Sergeant Krut and Detective Maritz’s testimony in the totality of the circumstances, and with appropriate deference to their knowledge and experience, there was more than enough reason for them to suspect that Cole possessed a weapon. See Mosley, 454 F.3d at 252; Rickus, 737 F.2d at 365. After all, Sergeant Krut did not need to be ‘absolutely certain’ that Cole had a weapon. Terry, 392 U.S. at 27. The factors articulated by Sergeant Krut are consistent with both Supreme Court and Third Circuit case law.” “In the same vein, as the Third Circuit has acknowledged: where there are drugs, there are often guns. See Davis, 726 F.3d at 440. So the information that Sergeant Krut received from Officer Frisk and Mr. Malik about suspected drug activity associated with Cole’s apartment building contributed to a reasonable fear that Cole may have a weapon.” United States v. Carter, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205376 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 26, 2019).*