The prosecution argued at the hearing that at the time the police stopped Alvarez, based on the phone call, the police had 'reasonable suspicion' to conclude that a crime had been committed, which would justify the stopping of Alvarez's vehicle and approaching him with their guns drawn. In support of this argument, the State relied on a line of cases beginning with Terry v. Ohio. In suppressing the evidence obtained from the person and the car of Alvarez, the court reasoned that at the time Alvarez was stopped, the officers did not have even reasonable suspicion that Alvarez had committed, was committing, or was about to commit any crime. In viewing the anonymous tip, the court held that its credibility did not rest on any facts which the caller purported to have learned by observation. Other than the attributes which other courts have viewed as adding credibility to the bald statement. For related chapters, see NCJ 115711 and 115713.