First, one factor the court should evaluate when examining the government's interest in public safety is "crime prevention and detection." United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221, 228 (1985). Crime prevention and detection are directly linked to public safety because, once detected, crime can be prevented by arresting criminals and taking dangerous criminals off the streets. The interest in catching criminals is “particularly strong when the criminal activity poses a threat to public safety.” .” United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135, 1142 (10th Cir. 2007). When examining the nature of the crime, the court should also examine the crime and pay “particular attention to the potential for continued or repeated danger . . . and any risk of escalation." Id. to 1141. Therefore, the public is safer and less likely to become a victim of crime with less dangerous criminals on the streets. Since the apprehension of criminals is involved in the prevention and detection of crime, another reason why courts have allowed the execution of a Terry Stop is to prevent suspects from fleeing and never being found again or remaining at large while they pose a threat to the public. The Supreme Court has held that where “the police have been unable to locate a person suspected of involvement in a past crime, the ability to briefly stop that person, ask questions, or verify identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the government's strong interest in solving crimes and bringing criminals to justice." Id. at 229. Second, another factor the court should evaluate when examining the government's interest in public safety is the "nature" of the crime. United States v. Grigg, 498 F.3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir. 2007). Public safety is linked to the nature of the offer…… half of the sheet……ed. (R. at 10:6 p.m.) Additionally, defendant was not stopped until after midnight on April 2, which was at least a day and a half after the possible computer breach occurred. (R. at 11:7 p.m.) Furthermore, in this case, the crime of computer hacking poses no threat to anyone's safety, and if the information has already been obtained, the suspect is unlikely to repeat the crime or the crime is committed. There were also less invasive alternatives that would have better served Dansby's personal interests as there were in Grigg's case, such as checking the license plate and contacting the person registered to the vehicle. See Grigg, 498 F.3d at 1076. Therefore, Defendant's initial stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the stop would not advance the government's interest enough to justify violating Defendant's individual liberty.