With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". defendants’ story was not credible: Why go biking in Vermont when you can bike in Arizona? However, October is prime foliage season in Vermont, and a plan to bike there hardly seems suspicious at that time of year. Contrast Chhien, 266 F.3d at 4-7 (conflicting stories were given to police questions by passenger and driver, a consensual frisk revealed $2,000 r Missouri traffic law, I conclude that Officer Crivello did not have reasonable suspicion for holding the defendants until the canine arrived. While Officer Crivel-lo’s hunch turned out to be true, the fact that the defendants were from a source state heading across the country for a bike trip on a known drug pipeline do not give rise to reasonable suspicion because too many people fit this description. See Yousif, 308 F.3d at 828 (<HOLDING>); see generally Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438,

A: recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking
B: holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute
C: holding that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based on his presence in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking and his flight upon seeing police officers
D: holding that the facts that defendant had outofstate license plates and was traveling on a highway that was a known drug trafficking corridor alone cannot justify the stop
D.