The State appealed an order suppressing evidence after a deputy questioned Charles Martin during an encounter involving a suspicious vehicle. The trial court concluded that the deputy’s inquiry elevated the encounter into an investigative detention requiring articulable suspicion. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that asking about the contents of a report concerning a suspicious vehicle was permissible during a first-tier police-citizen encounter and did not, by itself, transform the interaction into a seizure. The trial court therefore applied the wrong legal standard when it treated the question as requiring reasonable suspicion. The appellate court did not hold that every later police action would be valid without suspicion; it addressed only the challenged inquiry and the encounter’s classification on the record presented. The suppression ruling was reversed, and the case returned for proceedings consistent with that decision. The chief judge and another judge concurred.