According to Aldridge, the tip regarding the purchase of iodine, a legal product, is insufficient, at least in this case, to establish reasonable suspicion without some additional investigatory work. Because the officers admittedly had no basis for the stop other than the tip from the veterinary clinic, he concludes that the stop was illegal. He cites to United States v. Hauseur, 34 Fed.Appx. 372 (9th Cir. 2002), United States v. Reinholz, 245 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2001), and United States v. Araque, 255 F.Supp.2d 1010 (D.Neb. 2003), in support of this proposition. The cases cited by Aldridge do not directly address the issue before the court.

This information generated a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Cf., U.S. v. Ameling, 328 F.3d 443 (8th Cir.)cert. denied, 540 U.S. 961 (2003) (investigative stop of two persons who had split a purchase of 4 boxes of pseudoephedrine and then drove to another store where they reportedly bought a lithium battery); U.S. v. Scott, 2000 WL 368441 (10th Cir., unpublished, 4/10/2000) (investigative detention of person already under investigation for drug manufacturing after he purchased six boxes of antihistamine tablets and immediately tried to buy six more, but was refused); U.S. v. Araque, 255 F.Supp.2d 1010 (D.Neb. 2003) (investigative stop of car containing two persons who made an aborted effort to purchase two gallons of iodine from one store and a third person who later bought 15 boxes of pseudoephedrine from a different store); see also, U.S. v. Fisher, 241 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1163 (D.Kan. 2002) (investigative detention of person who was observed attempting to shoplift ten packages of lithium batteries, laying aside the batteries, leaving the store and engaging in countersurveillance shortly thereafter at a nearby store). The detention in this case was not unnecessarily long.

fendant's vehicle: (1) Det. Wall is an experienced law enforcement officer, has received specialized methamphetamine-related training, and belongs to St. Louis County's Drug Enforcement Team; (2) Det. Wall knew defendant had a history involving methamphetamine manufacture and had been arrested previously; and (3) Det. Wall saw defendant purchase two boxes of medication containing pseudoephedrine at Target and proceed immediately to Walgreens, where he purchased two more boxes. See id. at 1382 (upholding an investigative stop based on a combination of facts, including that the defendant was thought to have been previously arrested on a drug charge); United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 919 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (the sum of the patrolman's observations, examined in light of his "training and experience," constituted a reasonable, articulable suspicion of illegal activity justifying the seizure and detention of the defendant and the truck), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1113 (1995); cf United States v. Araque, No. 8:02CR316, 2003 WL 1857495, at *3 (D. Neb. Apr. 10, 2003) (given the defendants' purchases of unusual quantities of both iodine and cold medicine with pseudoephedrine within a very short time, an experienced officer could reasonably suspect that the individuals were collecting materials needed to make methamphetamine). Moreover, the fact that Det. Wall saw defendant purchase only four boxes of pills (containing less than 24 grams of pseudoephedrine) does not, under the circumstances, mean the detective lacked reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot and to have defendant's vehicle stopped.

¶ 35. The United States District Court in United States v. Araque, 255 F. Supp.2d 1010 (D. Neb. 2003) found a stop proper where officers received a tip from store employees that the defendant and another person had attempted to purchase two gallons of iodine, but left without completing the purchase when asked for identification. After receiving the tip, officers conducted surveillance on the car and observed the occupants purchasing pseudoephedrine from two drug stores before stopping the car. ¶ 36.

Suffice it to say, this case differs from those in which large quantities of products were purchased. E.g., United States v. Araque, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (D. Neb. 2003) (stop proper where couple attempted to purchase an unusually large amount of iodine (two gallons) and then purchased unusual quantities of cold medicine with pseudoephedrine at two different stores within a very short time). ¶20 This case also differs from others in which store employees called police when they believed customers were purchasing ingredients to manufacture methamphetamine where the purchases involved pseudoephedrine, a regulated substance, and/or police had an independent reason to stop the person such as a traffic infraction or suspicion of shoplifting.