Was there reasonable suspicion for Terry stop?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner moved to suppress evidence seized during a purported Terry stop. His motion was denied. Thereafter, he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Questions Presented are as follows: 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. OHTO WHEN THE OFFICERS EFFECTING PETITIONER’S SEIZURE KNEW 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? i