With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The fact that the officer did not recognize the minivan as belonging to a local resident also fails to contribute to the reasonable suspicion calculus. Evidence introduced at the suppression hearing made it clear that the area in question is one that is used for many purposes by different kinds of people-local residents use the roads as a shortcut, while both residents and tourists alike camp, hike, bike, picnic, and visit the local forest and national monument. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that a Border Patrol agent would not recognize every passing car. Similarly, the fact that a van is registered to an address in a block notorious for smuggling is also of no significance and may not be given any weight. See United States v. Jimenez-Medina, 173 F.3d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In arriving at this conclusion, we first

A: holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion
B: holding that a tip to look out for a black person without more does not give rise to reasonable suspicion to stop anyone
C: holding that coming from the wrong neighborhood does not give rise to reasonable suspicion
D: holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer
C.