JUSTICE KAPALA delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Richard L. Kipfer, appeals the circuit court of Du Page County's denial of hismotion to quash arrest and suppress evidence and his subsequent conviction of unlawful possessionof a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2002)). We conclude that the arresting policeofficer did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was about to commit a crimesufficient to justify an investigative stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed 2d 889, 88S. Ct. 1868 (1968). Consequently, the cocaine discovered as a result of that unlawful seizure shouldhave been suppressed. Because on remand the State would be unable to prove that defendantcommitted the offense of unlawful possession of a controlled substance without the suppressedcocaine, we reverse defendant's conviction and sentence.

Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS570/402(c) (West 2002)) and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5(a) (West2002)). Defendant filed a pretrial motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, alleging that thepolice officer seized him without probable cause to arrest or a reasonable, articulable suspicion thathe had committed a crime. Defendant further alleged that the seized contraband was the product ofthe unreasonable search and seizure and, therefore, was inadmissible pursuant to the exclusionaryrule.

At the hearing on his motion, defendant called Officer Biecker of the Downers Grove policedepartment. At about 3:30 a.m. on December 22, 2002, Officer Biecker entered the Autumn Groveapartment complex while on patrol in a fully marked squad car. As Officer Biecker drove throughthe parking lot, he saw defendant come out from behind a Dumpster and walk behind his squad car. Officer Biecker looked into his rearview mirror and saw defendant walking away. Officer Bieckersaid that "[d]ue to the apartment complex having a lot of car burglaries, thefts, burglaries, robberiesin that particular apartment complex, I thought it was kind of odd that at 3:30 in the morningsomebody was walking through the parking lot or coming out from behind a [D]umpster." OfficerBiecker turned his squad car around so that it was directly behind defendant, and he honked the hornat defendant two times. Defendant kept walking in front of the patrol car and did not respond or turnaround. Officer Biecker got out of his squad car and asked defendant to stop. Defendant turned andlooked back at Officer Biecker and then kept walking. Officer Biecker took two steps toward defendant and said something to the effect of "come here." Officer Biecker said that defendantstopped and reluctantly walked back toward him. Officer Biecker testified that defendant had aMcDonald's apple pie box in his hand. When asked if he had seen defendant do anything illegal,Officer Biecker said, "[n]ot illegal, but suspicious that he was coming out from behind a [D]umpsterat that time of night." Officer Biecker asked defendant where he was headed, and defendant said toa girlfriend's apartment and pointed in a northwest direction. When Officer Biecker asked defendantwhere the apartment was, defendant said he did not know. Officer Biecker asked defendant what hisbusiness was and if he lived in the area. Defendant said that he lived in one of the apartments. WhenOfficer Biecker asked defendant for the address, defendant could not provide one. At that point,Officer Biecker asked defendant for identification and defendant produced an identification with aDowners Grove address approximately two miles away from the apartment complex. Officer Bieckerrepeatedly asked defendant what his business was at the apartment complex and defendant "kind ofshut down" and did not want to answer any more questions. After obtaining defendant'sidentification, Officer Biecker told defendant that he was going to pat him down for weapons. Defendant placed his wallet and the McDonald's apple pie box on the squad car. When askedwhether there was anything about defendant that indicated that he had a weapon, Officer Bieckersaid, "[j]ust his answers to my questions. They were simple questions. He couldn't come up with anyof those questions, which led to my suspicion that he might have been out their [sic] burglarizing carsor looking to either rob or assault someone." Officer Biecker also said that defendant was wearinga bulky winter jacket.

As Officer Biecker began patting down defendant, he located what felt like a five- or six-inchobject in defendant's back pocket. Officer Biecker asked defendant what it was and defendant saidhe did not know. Initially, Officer Biecker thought it was a center punch used to shatter windowsin vehicles. As Officer Biecker began to manipulate the object, he discovered that it had two bluntends and, based on his experience, he knew that such an object could be used as a crack pipe. OfficerBiecker removed the object from defendant's pocket, placed it in his own pocket for safekeeping, andcontinued to search defendant for weapons. Officer Biecker placed defendant under arrest forpossession of drug paraphernalia. Officer Biecker collected the items defendant placed on top of thesquad car and found, within the apple pie box, a partially consumed apple pie and a sizable whitechunk in the apple pie. Later, at the police station, a field test on the white chunk indicated thepresence of cocaine.

On cross-examination by the State, Officer Biecker said that the parking lot at the apartmentcomplex is very well lit such that the fully marked squad car that he drove on the morning in questionwould be easily identifiable. Officer Biecker said that there were three reported vehicle burglaries inthe apartment complex's parking lot during the month preceding defendant's arrest. Officer Bieckerestimated that, in the three years that he had been employed by the Downers Grove policedepartment, he was at the apartment complex in question twice a week, taking reports of thefts,burglaries, car burglaries, or other complaints. While there were no other pedestrians in the parkinglot on the morning in question, Officer Biecker did observe another vehicle that pulled into the lotjust before he did. Officer Biecker testified that in his experience, car burglars use screwdrivers andcenter punches. Officer Biecker said that a center punch could hurt someone if it were used as aweapon.

After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court denied defendant's motion. The trialcourt held that the Terry stop was proper because defendant was observed at 3:40 a.m., walking outfrom behind a Dumpster in a parking lot that the officer described as a high-crime area. The trialcourt found it significant that there had been three car burglaries in the parking lot in the previousmonth. Next, the trial court determined that the pat-down for weapons was reasonable under thecircumstances, in light of defendant's answers to the officer's questions and because, in the officer'sexperience, car burglars often possess objects that could be used as weapons. The trial court alsoheld that removal of the pipe from defendant's pocket was justified because the officer came to theconclusion that it was a crack pipe while he manipulated the object in order to determine if it was aweapon. Finally, the trial court held that, with the removal of the pipe from defendant's pocket,Officer Biecker obtained probable cause to arrest defendant and that the search of the pie boxrevealing the cocaine was a lawful search incident to that arrest.

Thereafter, defendant waived his right to trial by jury, the State dismissed the possession ofdrug paraphernalia charge, and the parties proceeded to a stipulated bench trial on the unlawfulpossession of a controlled substance charge. The trial court found defendant guilty. After denyingdefendant's motion for a new trial, the trial court sentenced defendant to a 24-month period ofprobation. Defendant timely appeals.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash arrest andsuppress evidence. Defendant also contends that the evidence presented at the stipulated bench trialwas insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with defendant's firstcontention and, therefore, do not reach the second.

In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we may reverse the trial court'sfindings of historical fact only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v.Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d 425, 430-31 (2001). However, we must review de novo the ultimate conclusionof the trial court as to the existence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2dat 431. Also, when there is no dispute as to the facts or as to witness credibility, the standard ofreview is de novo. People v. Dilworth,169 Ill. 2d 195, 201 (1996). In this case the facts are not indispute. Defendant challenges the trial court's ultimate legal conclusions that the investigatory stopand the subsequent search were justified. Consequently, our review is de novo.

Defendant argues that the investigatory stop, the frisk for weapons itself, and the scope of thefrisk violated his constitutional rights. Defendant argues that the discovery of the cocaine was thefruit of that illegality and, therefore, the cocaine should have been suppressed. Because we concludethat the facts known to Officer Biecker at the time he initiated the investigatory stop did not providea reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant had or was about to commit a crime, we hold thatthe Terry stop violated defendant's constitutional rights. Consequently, we need not reach defendant'sarguments regarding the protective frisk.

Both the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 6, of theIllinois Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const.,amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,