In prosecution on bank robbery and firearm charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant at arrest scene even though defendant argued that police lacked probable cause to arrest him when police approached him on street after receiving report that three individuals with physical descriptions and clothing that matched defendant and two others in same vehicle had recently robbed bank. Police had reasonable suspicion to make investigatory stop of defendant based on report, and record showed that defendant was detained only 10 minutes until another officer arrived with photographs of bank robbery culprits, which in turn gave police probable cause to arrest defendant. Fact that defendant had been placed in handcuffs during instant 10-minute period did not transform investigatory stop into full-blown arrest. Dist. Ct also did not err in admitting expert testimony regarding shoe-prints left at scene of robbery that linked defendant to crime, even though defendant had argued that expert’s footwear analysis lacked reliable scientific facts, data and methodology.