At 7:40 a.m. on June 27, Officer Steve Sjerven was in the crossover preparing to turn south on Highway 65 to help the driver of an apparently disabled car. As he waited to turn, he saw a red pickup truck heading south on Highway 65 and made eye contact with the driver and sole occupant of the truck. The driver abruptly turned the truck or any dust that might be expected from a truck traveling down a gravel road, the officer concluded that the truck must have immediately pulled into a driveway. As the officer pulled up to assist the disabled car, he saw the pickup emerge and turn south onto Highway 65 shortly after turning onto Tower Systems Road. Inferring that the driver had turned off Highway 65 to avoid him, the officer motioned the pickup driver to stop. The driver did so, identified himself as Mark, and admitted that his license had been revoked.

1. As the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions require only that an officer have a "particular and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity," what is your judgment of Officer Sjerven's approach?

1. Because Mark's action can be explained as consistent with lawful activities, Officer Sjerven should not stop him.
2. The officer's suspicion, though nothing more than a hunch, was later verified by the stop.
3. Sjerven stopped Mark on a mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity, and so should be disciplined for poor judgment in operational skills.
4. Inferences and deductions might well elude an untrained person, but a trained police officer is entitled to draw inferences based on "all of the circumstances."
5. If the observed facts are consistent with innocent activity, then the stop is invalid.