With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". May, 886 at 282. To satisfy its burden, the prosecution must show that the police had "specific and articulable facts which, when taken together with the reasonable inferences from these facts, give rise to a reasonable suspicion." Boylan, 854 P.2d at 811; Unruh, 713 P.2d at 379; see also Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000)(stating that "determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior"). At the suppression hearing, the trial court ruled that the police acted without reasonable suspicion. We agree. We determine here that the facts, when taken together, did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity other than the traffic violation. When reviewing a motion to suppres 1997)(<HOLDING>). Officer Miller observed Haley following

A: holding that an officer can stop an individual if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is underfoot
B: holding that although the investigation of the traffic offense that served as the basis for the stop was complete when the officer issued the citation the officers continued detention of the appellant thereafter for a canine search was lawful because during the investigation of the traffic offense the officer had developed a reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed a drugrelated offense
C: holding that if an officer possesses an objectively reasonable suspicion that a traffic offense has been committed the officer may request identifying information from the driver
D: holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law
C.