☢ test - Í

requisite articulable suspicion to warrant the investigative stop and detention.’ Brown v. State, [278 Ga. 724, 727(2) (609 S.E.2d 312) (2004)]. See Faulkner v. State, 277 Ga.App. 702, 704 (627 S.E.2d 423) (2006); McNair v. State, 267 Ga.App. 872, 873-874(1) (600 S.E.2d 830) (2004).” Accord, Ingram v. State , 286 Ga.App. 436, 649 S.E.2d 576 (July 9, 2007) (detailed information relayed from captain to officer, including vehicle description, location, and direction of travel, justified stop, although captain described vehicle as Ford instead of Chevy); Brandt v. State , 314 Ga.App. 343, 723 S.E.2d 733 (February 24, 2012) (similar BOLO justified detention of vehicle occupants). Faulkner v. State , 277 Ga.App. 702, 704(1) (627 S.E.2d 423) (February 21, 2006). Trial court properly denied motion to suppress in defendant’s DUI prosecution; stop was justified by particularized suspicion that driver of vehicle was drunk. “The BOLO provided particularized information describing the color, manufacturer and model of the vehicle, the number and race of its occupants, and its location and direction of travel.” “‘In this case, unlike Vansant , the officer[ ] knew the make of the car reported to be involved in the crime, and [he] spotted a vehicle meeting the BOLO description [a block away from] the reported crime location only seconds after receiving the radio dispatch.’ Francis v. State, 275 Ga.App. 164, 165(1), 620 S.E.2d 431 (2005); State v. Harden, 267 Ga.App. 381, 383, 599 S.E.2d 329 (2004). Although Faulkner claims that Officer Merchant did not observe ‘any unusual driving behavior’ until after he activated his blue lights, the officer was not required to await the commission of a traffic offense in his presence before conducting an investigative stop in light of the BOLO. See Harden, 267 Ga.App. at 383, 599 S.E.2d 329.” Officer encountered vehicle “[t]hirty seconds after the broadcast” of the BOLO, a block from the scene and traveling away from the scene. Accord, Brandt v. State , 314 Ga.App. 343, 723 S.E.2d 733 (February 24, 2012). Francis v. State, 275 Ga.App. 164, 620 S.E.2d 431 (August 17, 2005). “[A]t approximately 5:00 a.m. on June 19, 2003, two officers in a marked patrol car received a report of a theft at the QuikTrip convenience store on the corner of Five Forks Trickum Road and Dogwood Road. The officers were told to be on the lookout (‘BOLO’) for a red Ford Mustang, whose passenger, a black male, had reportedly stolen two cases of beer. The officers were on Five Forks Trickum Road at the time. A few seconds later, the officers saw a red Mustang directly in front of the QuikTrip. The Mustang was the only other vehicle on the road.” Held, this evidence was sufficient to justify stop, although it turned out not to be the same vehicle; distinguished from Vansant because specific make of vehicle given, vehicle was spotted within seconds of lookout broadcast at exact location of incident. Officers here also observed traffic offenses and apparent evasive maneuvers, but opinion makes clear that stop was justified by lookout alone. Distinguished in Murray (December 6, 2006), below under BOLO – Description Inadequate (not enough specific information, not proximate enough in time/place). State v. Harden, 267 Ga.App. 381, 599 S.E.2d 329 (May 12, 2004). In DUI prosecution, trial court erred in granting motion to suppress; officer had articulable suspicion for stop based on radio dispatch to look “for an intoxicated person driving away from the Regions Bank at the corner of Spring Street and EE Butler in Gainesville. The dispatcher described the person as a white male wearing a white ball cap and stated that he was driving a white Ford van out of the bank’s upper parking deck.… Deputy Rungruang testified that he saw the subject of the lookout as soon as the description was given on the radio. The deputy was able to observe the vehicle exit the top of the parking deck, and he also was able to see that the driver was male and wearing a ball cap. The deputy saw no other white vans in the parking lot.” Deputy observed no traffic offenses. Citing Brown; distinguishing Vansant based on proximity of time and place, some description of driver. Accord, Lamb v. State , 269 Ga.App. 335, 604 S.E.2d 207 (August 6, 2004). Distinguished in Murray (December 6, 2006), below under BOLO – Description Inadequate (not enough specific information, not proximate enough in time/place). Brown v. State, 253 Ga.App. 741, 560 S.E.2d 316 (February 14, 2002). Concerned driver’s call to 911 about suspected drunk driver was sufficient to justify officer’s stop, made within minutes of the dispatch look-out, although no other traffic offenses were observed by the officer. Call included vehicle description, tag, location and direction of travel; caller indicated he was behind and following the vehicle. Accord, State v. Gomez , 266 Ga.App. 423, 597 S.E.2d 509 (March 22, 2004); Adcock v. State , 299 Ga.App. 1, 681 S.E.2d 691 (July 10, 2009); Sims v. State , 299 Ga.App. 871, 683 S.E.2d 911 (August 27, 2009). See also Bingham (February 6, 2007), above . Shorter v. State, 239 Ga.App. 625, 521 S.E.2d 684 (August 17, 1999). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed. Officer had articulable suspicion for stop: “Here, the officer was looking for a blue Cadillac with four black men near the area where a tipster said he saw gunshots fired from such a car. A blue Cadillac with four black men in it crossed the road directly in front of the police car, almost hitting it. The officer had to stop in the middle of the street to avoid a collision. These facts support the conclusion that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion for attempting to pull