What is the test for establishing that there was founded suspicion for a brief police stop of a moving vehicle?

The district court's conclusion that founded suspicion existed for the stop is reviewed de novo. United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1402 (9th Cir.1985). We review for clear error the findings of fact on which the district court based its conclusion that reasonable suspicion for a stop did exist. Id.

The police may make a "brief investigatory stop of a moving vehicle, consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment, if under the totality of the circumstances, they are aware of articulable facts leading to a reasonable or founded suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity." Id. At the time the stop was made, the agents possessed a substantial body of information from which they had a reasonable suspicion that White and Watts had just participated in a drug transaction. The record reflected (1) activity at the suspect house consistent with the conduct of a drug business [RT 2/10 at 18]; (2) utilities for the suspect house were paid by a suspected drug dealer [id. at 79-80]; (3) substantial vehicular activity at the house [id. at 26]; (4) counter-surveillance activities were conducted by the occupants of the house [id. at 71]; (5) the car of White and Watts was observed pulling into the garage, and the garage door was then closed. A short time later, the car backed out of the garage and left the area [id. at 20, 36]; and (6) another car pulled in shortly thereafter and the same procedure was followed [id. at 65-66]. Any one of these factors is not indicative of illegal conduct, but taken together they amount to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Sokolow, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1586 (1989) (Sokolow ). Thus, the district court did not err in determining that reasonable suspicion existed.