“If these were all the facts, establishing reasonable suspicion might have been a close call for the officers. But Wilson’s unprovoked, headlong flight from police in a high-crime area put any lingering doubt to rest. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124, 120 S. Ct. 673, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2000) (‘Headlong flight—wherever it occurs—is the consummate act of evasion: It is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such.’). A reasonable officer could infer from Wilson’s flight that Wilson knew he was in violation of the law. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 587, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 (2018). Considering the totality of the circumstances—and his flight especially—Wilson’s seizure was supported by the officers’ reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Wilson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20352 (7th Cir. June 30, 2020).
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality, and “Moreover, Officer Black was justified in relying on the bystander’s tip as communicated by Corporal Howard as part of his basis for reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Mitchell, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20412 (4th Cir. June 30, 2020).*