MURPHY, Judge.
¶ 1 Before law enforcement officers may perform an investigatory stop on someone without a warrant, the United States Constitution and North Carolina Constitution require that they have reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Reasonable articulable suspicion can arise through an anonymous tip if the tip has sufficient indicia of reliability and suggests criminal activity is afoot. Reasonable articulable suspicion may also exist where the totality of the circumstances suggests criminal activity is afoot. Evidence that is illegally obtained as a result of an unconstitutional stop without reasonable articulable suspicion must be suppressed. Here, the totality of the circumstances indicated Defendant unlawfully possessed a weapon, providing law enforcement with reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Defendant. As a result, the stop was constitutional and the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.
¶ 2 On 2 January 2018, a grand jury indicted Defendant Joseph Donald Royster III for possession of a firearm by a felon; trafficking opium or heroin by possession; trafficking cocaine by possession; manufacturing, selling, delivering, or possessing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school; possession of a weapon on school property; possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine; possession with intent to sell or deliver heroin; and attaining the status of habitual felon. On 29 May 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence , arguing law enforcement did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Defendant and the trial court should suppress the evidence that was subsequently discovered as a result of the stop. A hearing on the motion to suppress was held on 7 December 2018, and the trial court denied the motion in its Order Denying Motion to Suppress ("Order"), filed on 9 October 2019. The Order included the following findings of facts, which are unchallenged on appeal1 :
1. On [2 January 2018], [Defendant] was indicted by a grand jury on charges of: possession of a weapon on school property, possession of cocaine with intent to sell and deliver, and possession of heroin with intent to sell and deliver.
2. [ ] Defendant was arrested on [16 September 2017], after officers found him in possession of a firearm, heroin and cocaine on school property.
3. Earlier that day, the Winston-Salem Police Department ... received a detailed anonymous report ... from a caller who stated that a black male named Joseph Royster, who goes by "Gooney," had heroin and a gun in his vehicle, which the caller described as a black Chevrolet Impala with [a specified] license plate number [ ].
4. The caller described the black male as wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans, with gold teeth and a gold necklace. The caller also reported that the heroin and the gun were located in the armrest of the black Chevrolet Impala, which was parked near the premises of South Fork Elementary School ....
5. Based on [the] anonymous report, several officers from the Department responded to the scene at South Fork Elementary, including: Sgt. Ryan Phillips, Officer C.I. Penn, Officer Harrison, and Officer Robertson.
6. Sgt. Phillips is a patrol [s]upervisor with more than 13 years of experience with the Department, including S.W.A.T., who also previously served as a New York City Police Officer. He has participated in 300-400 drug crime investigations, and participated in 75-100 arrests.
7. As the supervising officer on duty, Sgt. Phillips responded first to the call.
8. After receiving the anonymous report on [16 September 2017], and prior to arriving at South Fork Elementary, Sgt. Phillips searched the Department's database, the PISTOL database, for information on [Defendant].
9. Through the PISTOL database, Sgt. Phillips found a picture of [Defendant], which showed him as a black male with gold teeth. The PISTOL database also showed that [Defendant] had a history of drug charges, and a charge for possession of a firearm by a felon.
10. South Fork Elementary is a school located in Forsyth County, North Carolina.
11. When Sgt. Phillips arrived at South Fork Elementary, he exited his vehicle on foot and located a black Chevrolet Impala with the [specified] license plate number [ ], as described in the anonymous report, backed into a parking spot near the school. A youth football game was in progress at the school.
12. The black Chevrolet Impala was not occupied at the time, and Sgt. Phillips positioned himself approximately 40-50 yards from the black Chevrolet Impala to watch for anyone who approached the vehicle.
13. Meanwhile, as Sgt. Phillips located the Impala, Officer Penn and his supervising officer accompanying him in his vehicle, Officer Robertson, met with Officer Harrison, who was in a separate vehicle.
14. Officer Penn retrieved the same information through the PISTOL database that Sgt. Phillips retrieved, and also verified [Defendant's] identity through his picture in the database.
15. Officers Penn and Robertson, and Officer Harrison, positioned themselves across the street, waiting for instructions from Sgt. Phillips.
16. As Sgt. Phillips watched the black Chevrolet Impala, a black male wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans with a gold necklace and gold teeth -- matching the description in the anonymous report -- approached the black Chevrolet Impala and opened the door. Sgt. Phillips then radioed for the other officers to join him on the scene as the black male was getting into the black Chevrolet Impala.
17. Sgt. Phillips then approached the black Chevrolet Impala, and as he did so the black male exited the vehicle. While the black male was standing next to the black Chevrolet Impala, Sgt. Phillips called out [Defendant's] name, whereupon the black male turned around and looked at Sgt. Phillips. The black male then reached inside the black Chevrolet Impala, turned the vehicle off, and shut the door.
18. The black male then began walking away as Sgt. Phillips walked toward him. With his back to Sgt. Phillips, the black male reached for his waistband.
19. Sgt. Phillips warned the black male, "Don't be reaching for your waistband."
20. Based on Sgt. Phillips’ training and experience, in addition to the anonymous report that was received and the other corroborated information obtained by Sgt. Phillips regarding prior charges against [Defendant], Sgt. Phillips suspected the potential presence of a firearm.
21. The black male, who Sgt. Phillips identified as [Defendant], was anxious, upset, and "antsy." Sgt. Phillips and Officer Harrison frisked [Defendant] for weapons for the safety of the officers, and informed [Defendant] they were detaining him for a narcotics investigation.
¶ 3 The Order included the following conclusions of law:
1. The [trial court] has jurisdiction over [ ] Defendant and the subject matter[.]
2. Based on the totality of [the] circumstances, including the detailed anonymous report and the information contained therein that was corroborated by Sgt. Phillips and the other officers, Sgt. Phillips’ training and experience in investigating drug crimes, and [ ] Defendant's turning and walking away from the officers upon making eye contact with Sgt. Phillips and then reaching for his waistband, the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant.
3. As a result, Defendant's Motion to Suppress based on lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop should be denied.
¶ 4 Defendant pled guilty to all charges on 30 October 2019, reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, and subsequently gave notice of appeal in open court. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an active term of 76-104 months.
¶ 5 On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress as "[t]he officers could not lawfully conduct an investigatory stop of [Defendant] without a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity." Defendant contends this rendered the stop illegal and the evidence resulting from it should have been suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, requiring us to reverse the Order and vacate his convictions premised upon his guilty plea. As noted above, Defendant does not challenge any findings of fact in the Order and instead challenges only the conclusions of law reached by the trial court.
¶ 6 Review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress is "strictly limited to determining whether the trial [court's] underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the [trial court's] ultimate conclusions of law." State v. Cooke , 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). "Unchallenged findings of fact are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to full review." Warren , 242 N.C. App. at 498, 775 S.E.2d at 364 (marks omitted).
A. Reasonable Articulable Suspicion
¶ 7 The trial court based Conclusion of Law 2, that reasonable articulable suspicion existed for the stop, on
the totality of [the] circumstances, including the detailed anonymous report and the information contained therein that was corroborated by Sgt. Phillips and the other officers, Sgt. Phillips’ training and experience in investigating drug crimes, and [ ] Defendant's turning and walking away from the officers upon making eye contact with Sgt. Phillips and then reaching for his waistband[.]
Although not explicitly discussed in Conclusion of Law 2, the totality...
