☢ test - Í

McBurrows v. State, 325 Ga.App. 303, 750 S.E.2d 436 (November 7, 2013). Armed robbery and firearms convictions affirmed. Trial court properly denied motion to suppress, as officershad articulable suspicion for stop. Investigating two armed robberies, officer went to other local businesses and told them he was investigating the crimes, which were perpetrated by a described black male driving a dark two-door Ford Thunderbird “between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. At about 10:30 p.m. one night, the detective received a call from a local security guard that the guard saw a dark colored Ford Thunderbird parked across the street from the check-cashing store and that two people were sitting inside the vehicle.” A BOLO was issued and officers stopped the vehicle. “BOLO broadcast by the detective provided a reasonable basis to stop the vehicle in which McBurrows was a passenger. The BOLO provided particularized information describing the color, manufacturer and model of the vehicle, the number of occupants, and the location of the vehicle. … Based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had a reasonable suspicion to believe that the vehicle and its occupants was about to be engaged in criminal activity, and therefore, the stop was valid.” Johnson v. State, 324 Ga.App. 508, 751 S.E.2d 141 (November 6, 2013). Convictions for kidnapping with bodily injury and related offenses affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress. Stop based on 911 caller’s information was supported by articulable suspicion. “Dispatch informed the officer of a possible burglary in progress involving four black males in black clothing in a silver vehicle. The officer parked his patrol car near the only exit/entrance to the apartment complex. Almost immediately thereafter, the officer observed a silver vehicle, which matched the description given by dispatch, approach his patrol car and turn right out of the apartment complex. As the car passed the officer, he observed that the occupants matched the description given by dispatch. The officer then followed the car to an intersection along Candler Road, where he and other responding officers conducted a stop. The stop occurred only a few minutes after the resident observed the four males get into the vehicle and leave the apartment complex.” Hinton v. State, 321 Ga.App. 445, 740 S.E.2d 394 (March 25, 2013). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress. Radio dispatch and officers’ own observations supplied articulable suspicion for stop. “Given the additional information in the radio dispatches about the make, model, and color of the vehicle, and the description of its four occupants, the police also had probable cause, which can rest on the collective knowledge of the police when there is, as here, some degree of communication between them, instead of on the knowledge of the arresting officer alone. Burgeson v. State, 267 Ga. 102, 105(3)(a), 475 S.E.2d 580 (1996). Here, the stop was lawful because it was based on reliable information from 911 and police radio dispatches, and was shortly corroborated by officers' sighting of a car and its occupants matching the description provided, giving police reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that a suspect had committed an offense. Bell v. State, 291 Ga.App. 169, 172(3), 661 S.E.2d 207 (2008). Hinton, citing Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319, 321(2), 443 S.E.2d 474 (1994), argues that the radio dispatch description of the Lincoln was insufficient to support the requisite particularized suspicion necessary justify a vehicle stop. However, this case is distinguishable in that the description in Vansant was only of the color and make of the vehicle at issue, and unlike the instant case, did not include a description of the occupants or the vehicle's tag.” Avery v. State, 313 Ga.App. 259, 721 S.E.2d 202 (December 8, 2011). Probation revocation affirmed; trial court properly found that officer had articulable suspicion to stop defendant, and thus defendant’s subsequent flight amounted to obstruction (and violated his probation). “[Officer] Derouen had received a briefing that evening to be on the lookout for the perpetrator of the robbery, described as a tall, black man, wearing dark clothes and a plaid shirt, with white or grey gloves; Avery was wearing dark clothing, a long, dark trench coat and maybe a hat, and he had gray gloves. Derouen stopped Avery because he fit the be-on-the-lookout description and was in the same location as the robbery. Avery refused to speak with Derouen and ran away, ignoring Derouen's order to stop. Derouen caught up with him and arrested him.” Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 694 S.E.2d 316 (March 15, 2010). At defendant’s capital murder trial, trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress; BOLO description of vehicle was adequate. “At the time of the attempted stop of Humphreys's vehicle, the police had a description of its make, model, color, and paper temporary rental vehicle tag. They knew that the vehicle was being tracked by a cellular telephone signal to the area and highway where it was first sighted. The light traffic during the early morning hours and the short time between the transmission of the lookout and Officer Schmitt's spotting the vehicle made it even more likely that the vehicle he saw was in fact the vehicle described in the lookout. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding that the police had sufficient information to provide them ‘with the requisite particularized basis to warrant the investigative stop.’ Thomason v. State, 268 Ga. 298, 301(2)(a) (486 S.E.2d 861) (1997).”