QUESTION 1 : WAS THERE "REASONABLE SUSPICION" JUSTIFYING PETITIONER'S STOP AND FRISK UNDER TERRY WHEN THE OFFICERS EFFECTING THE "STOP " DID NOT OBSERVE PETITIONER ENGAGED IN ANY CRIMINAL CONDUCT , BUT DID SEE HIM SOCIALIZING AMONG A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHILE STANDING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A VEHICLE OCCUPIED BY OTHERS THAT HAD BEEN STOLEN TEN DAYS' EARLIER ?

QUESTION 2: WAS PETITIONER CONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED AND FRISKED UNDER TERRY v. OHIO WHEN THE OFFICERS EFFECTING PETITIONER'S SEIZURE KN EW BEFORE THEY SEIZED HIM THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY PROHIBITED THE OFFICERS FROM QUESTIONING PETITIONER ABOUT HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE TEN -DAY OLD CRIMINAL OFFENSE THAT PROMPTED HIS SEIZURE?

QUESTION 3 : IS A WARRANTLESS SEIZURE CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER TERRY v. OHIO WHERE, WITHOUT AN INVESTIGATORY PURPOSE, THE POLICE ORDER AN INDIVIDUAL AT GUNPOINT TO LIE FACE -DOWN ON A PAVED PARKING LOT AND THEN HANDCUFF THAT INDIVIDUAL BEHIND HIS BACK?

Was there reasonable suspicion for Terry stop?