may stop and briefly detain a person to investigate a reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity, even though probable cause may be lacking. United States v.
Williams, 876 F.2d 1521, 1523 (11th Cir. 1989).
Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is not readily or usefully reduced
to a set of legal rules. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581,
1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1, 10 (1989). Reasonable suspicion is considerably less than
proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence and less than probable
cause, which requires a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will
be found. Id. When determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, a court
must review the totality of the circumstances to ascertain whether the officer had a
particularized and objective basis to suspect legal wrongdoing. United States v.
Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 750, 151 L.Ed.2d 740, 750 (2002).
When an officer reasonably suspects that criminal activity may be afoot, and
that the person with whom the officer is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous, the officer is entitled to conduct a pat-down of such person in order to
determine whether he is in fact armed. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct.
1868, 1884-85, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 911 (1968). The officer need not be absolutely
certain that an individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent
person in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that