(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would hold that under our standard of review, the evidence presented during the suppression hearing warrants affirming the trial judge’s findings that the police had reasonable suspicion to approach and detain Taylor *125as well as the right to take precautions for their own safety when he refused to cooperate. I would also affirm the trial judge’s rejection of Taylor’s arguments for suppressing the drugs found on his person when the police attempted to search him for weapons.
In State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66, 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000), the South Carolina Supreme Court set forth the standard of review for rulings in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases: the appellate court “will review the trial court’s ruling like any other factual finding and reverse if there is clear error.... [The appellate court] will affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling.” In holding reasonable suspicion was laeking, the majority appears to have departed from this standard in favor of relying on its own view of the totality of the circumstances in the case.
I agree a determination of reasonable suspicion requires consideration of “the totality of the circumstances — the whole picture.” U.S. v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). In this State, however, this analysis of the totality of the circumstances is a function of the trial court and does not alter the deferential standard that appellate courts must observe when reviewing a trial judge’s finding as to whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred. See State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69-70, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (adhering to the deferential standard of review, but stating that Brockman “does not hold the appellate court may not conduct its own review of the record to determine whether the trial judge’s decision is supported by the evidence”).
Using the deferential standard of review mandated by our Supreme Court, I would hold the State presented evidence during the suppression hearing to support the trial judge’s finding that Officer Bellamy’s decision to approach and detain Taylor was based on “specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted] [the] intrusion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), quoted in State v. Lesley, 326 S.C. 641, 643-44, 486 S.E.2d 276, 277 (Ct.App.1997).
*126As the trial judge stated when denying Taylor’s motion to suppress, this case involved more than an anonymous tip. There was testimony from the police officers that the location named by the tipster was a well-known drug area. Furthermore, although Taylor pedaled toward the officers when he separated from his companion, it appears undisputed that he was attempting to avoid them.
In addition, the trial judge placed great emphasis on Officer Bellamy’s testimony that he observed Taylor and his companion “huddled up trying to hide something” and that, in Bellamy’s experience, “[ijt’s 90 percent of the time it’s some sort of illegal activity going on.” Although the majority acknowledged in its recitation of the facts that Officer Bellamy relied on his law enforcement experience in deciding the situation warranted detaining Taylor, it appears to dismiss his reliance on this experience and instead emphasize the fact that none of the officers at the scene saw anything pass between the two men while they were observed “huddled up.” What the majority appears to overlook is that the meeting between Taylor and his companion happened late in the evening and apparently at some distance from where the officers first sighted them. This is unlike the encounter in U.S. v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613 (4th Cir.1997), on which the majority relies. See id. at 616 (noting the arresting officers had “walked by the driver side” of the vehicle in which the defendant was “huddling and talking to” another individual and quoting testimony from the officers that their observations of the defendant before arresting him took place on a “ ‘fairly bright day’ with ‘plenty of light’ ”). Thus, whereas in Sprinkle the officers actually saw at close range and in bright light the absence of fruits or instruments of any crime, the officers in the present case could have been prevented by distance and lighting conditions from observing any suspicious activity, particularly if the subjects engaged in that activity were attempting to conceal it. Considering that the officers had less than optimal conditions to view the scene, I can fault neither Officer Bellamy for his decision to rely on his professional experience and training in determining that what he saw warranted further investigation nor the trial judge for ruling that this reliance was reasonable. Courts have allowed such reliance when reviewing probable cause determinations. See State v. *127Peters, 271 S.C. 498, 504, 248 S.E.2d 475, 478 (1978) (“In dealing with probable cause, ... as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.”); State v. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 357, 580 S.E.2d 778, 783 (Ct.App.2003) (“[T]he law is well settled that the officer’s knowledge of general trends in criminal behavior is a relevant consideration in determining probable cause.”). I see no reason not to apply a similar policy when reviewing determinations of reasonable suspicion, which require “ ‘less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause.’ ” State v. Butler, 343 S.C. 198, 202, 539 S.E.2d 414, 416 (Ct.App.2000) (quoting Nebraska v. Soukharith, 253 Neb. 310, 570 N.W.2d 344, 354 (1997)).
I would therefore follow the reasoning set forth by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Lender, 985 F.2d 151 (4th Cir.1993), which the majority has referenced but attempted to distinguish. In that case, the court, in rejecting the defendant’s argument that he was unlawfully stopped by the police after officers observed him extending his hand with his palm up while talking with friends on a street corner in a poor section of town, stated that “[wjhile the defendant’s mere presence in a high crime area is not by itself enough to raise reasonable suspicion, an area’s propensity toward criminal activity is something that an officer may consider.” Id. at 154. The court also noted “[t]he lateness of the hour is another fact that may raise the level of suspicion.” Id. Finally, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of drugs or other contraband at the scene, the court justified the officers’ decision to approach the defendant, explaining as follows:
Additionally, the officers observed the defendant engaged in behavior that they suspected to be a drug transaction. In this neighborhood at this late time of night, a group of men was gathered around Lender looking down into his open palm. We cannot say that a reasonable police officer was required to regard such conduct as innocuous. Even though the officers acknowledged that from their passing patrol car they could not see drugs or other contraband in the defendant’s hand, the officers were not required in the absence of probable cause simply to “shrug [their] shoulders and allow a crime to occur. ” Because they suspected illegal *128activity, Officers Hill and Thomell responded precisely as the law provides: they attempted to investigate further.
Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Because I would hold that there was evidence presented during the suppression hearing to support a finding of reasonable suspicion, I would also reject Taylor’s argument that the drugs discovered by the police after they stopped him should have been excluded as the fruits of an illegal stop.
As to Taylor’s other argument, that the officers did not have the legal right to intrude into the tennis ball because there was nothing inherently incriminating about it, I would hold the testimony presented during the suppression hearing supports the trial judge’s finding that Officer Bellamy acted reasonably when he discovered it on Taylor’s person. During the pat-down search, Officer Bellamy could determine only that the bulge in Taylor’s pocket was a “hard object” that warranted further investigation to ascertain that it was not a weapon. When Officer Bellamy asked Taylor what was in his pocket, Taylor attempted to extricate himself, and Officer Bellamy managed to manipulate the object out of Taylor’s pocket and onto the ground. According to Officer Bellamy, he noticed the drugs inside the tennis ball through the slit on the surface on the ball as he was picking it up from the ground. Thus, the incriminating nature of the contents of the tennis ball became apparent to the police while they were still in the process of ensuring Taylor was not armed. See State v. Abrams, 322 S.C. 286, 288, 471 S.E.2d 716, 717 (Ct.App.1996) (holding that once the police discovered the defendant was not armed, “they could not carry the intrusiveness of their search further unless the incriminating character of the object discovered during the search was immediately apparent to the officer performing the pat-down”). Nothing in Officer Bellamy’s testimony suggested that he squeezed the ball for any purpose other than to pick it up off the ground. Moreover, it was as he was picking up the ball that he noticed the drugs inside it through the slit on the surface.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the trial judge’s denial of Taylor’s motion to suppress the drug evidence offered by the State against him and would likewise affirm his conviction.