A Dоuglas County jury found Willie Carl Porter guilty of two counts of theft by receiving, seven counts of burglary, and one count of felony obstruction of an officer. On appeal, Porter claims the trial court erred in failing to grant his motions to suppress (1) evidence resulting from the initial stop and subsequent search of a red Jeep Cherokee he was driving on January 6, 2000, (2) evidence seized in the execution of a search warrant for the residence of Talitha Desiree Leever, and (3) his in-custody statement to Investigator James Harrell. Porter also claims the trial court erred in allowing improper similar transaction evidence, in failing to direct a verdict in his favor on the burglary counts, and in failing to charge the jury on theft by receiving as a lesser included charge of burglаry. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
1. Porter contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of the search of the red Jeep Cherokee he was driving on January 6, 2000, because the police did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the Jeep to question him. We disagree.
On review of the grant or denial of a motion to suppress, this Court “construe [s] the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court, and we will not disturb the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility unless those findings are clearly erroneous.” (Citation omitted.)
Vaughn v.
State,
Martin thought the incident was suspicious because school would have been in session, the Jeep had remained in the driveway for a long time without anyone ringing the doorbell, and because of the age diffеrence of the couple in the Jeep. Arnett telephoned the police to report that someone was “casing” their house or the neighborhood. Police were also aware of a postal worker’s report the pre *527 ceding day of a red vehicle with a man and woman inside acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a burglary.
On the morning of January 6, 2000, Maria Leаman was on patrol duty for the Douglas County Sheriff's Department. She received a “lookout” over the police radio. Leaman was informed that two people, a man and woman, had pulled into a lady’s driveway in a red Jeep Cherokee, and that they had walked around her house, had seemed suspicious, and when confronted gave a “lame” excuse аs to why they were there. Leaman was also told that a spare tire was in place on the left rear of the vehicle. About five minutes after receiving the lookout, Leaman saw a red Jeep Cherokee and followed it into a subdivision, where it turned into a residential driveway. Leaman turned into the driveway and parked behind the Jeep. Leaman did not turn on her lights and siren. The windows of the Jeep were tinted dark, and Leaman could not tell who was in the vehicle. Leaman thought the residents of that address could be in the Jeep.
Leaman called in the tag number of the Jeep; she then got out and began walking toward the driver’s side of the vehicle. As she walked up, she noticed the spare tire on the back of the Jeep, which was smaller than thе other tires. About this time, Deputy Jeff Davis arrived, running his siren and lights, and pulled in behind Leaman’s vehicle. Davis had personally worked on two residential burglaries in the area and knew that police had developed a lead on a red vehicle. Davis testified that he responded with lights and sirens activated because weapons had been stolen in the previous burglaries and because Leaman reported she was in contact with the suspect vehicle.
The window on the driver’s side of the Jeep was rolled down and Leaman saw a man and woman inside. Leaman asked the driver, later identified as Porter, who he was and what he was doing, but he did not respond and instead began rummaging through the console between the two seats. Leaman then asked Porter to step out of the vehicle, and she intended to handcuff him and check him for weapons. Porter did not respond. Leaman opened the door of the Jeep, and Porter rushed out of the vehicle, knocking Leaman down, then jumped over a fence and ran from the scene. Leaman chased Porter until she heard the sound of gunshots, and then returned to her vehicle. Whеn she got back to the patrol car she learned that the Jeep had been reported stolen. Porter was tracked by K-9 officers and arrested later that day.
While Leaman was asking Porter to exit the Jeep, Davis went to the passenger’s side of the vehicle and removed the woman, Leever. After Porter knocked Leaman down, Davis put Leever in a pаtrol car and went to assist Leaman. Off-duty police officer Roger Jones saw Leaman and Davis chasing Porter through a neighbor’s yard, and *528 came outside to help. Jones noticed Leever, who had managed to kick out the windows of the patrol car and was running down the street toward Jones’s house. Jones chased Leever, but she pulled out a gun and shot him twice. Davis was able to locate and take Leever into custody approximately ten to fifteen minutes after she shot Jones.
An officer may conduct a brief investigative stop of a vehicle if the stop is justified by “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” (Footnote omitted.)
Terry v. Ohio,
When Leaman pulled up behind the stationary vehicle, she did not have her lights or siren activated, and her first action after approaching the Jeep was to ask for identification. “A police officer may approach a citizen, ask for identification, and freely question a citizen with or without any basis or belief that the citizen is involved in criminal activity, as long as the offiсer does not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave.”
Ransom v. State,
Accordingly, the police officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and were authorized to conduct a brief investigatory detention. Porter was never actually detained beсause he fled the scene on foot, and his subsequent arrest was for probable cause. See,
*529
e.g.,
Burgeson v. State,
2. Porter claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of Leever’s residence because there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant. We disagree.
In determining whether an affidavit provided sufficient probable cause, the issuing magistrate or judge must make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a “substantial basis for concluding” that probable cause existed.
(Punctuation and footnote omitted.)
Shivers v. State,
The information in the affidavit submitted by Lieutenant Bobby Holmes to support the issuance of the search warrant for Leever’s residence included a confession made by Leever to police in which she admits to having been involved in recent burglaries and also admits there was stolen property at her residence. But, at the hearing on motion to suppress, the State stipulated that the trial court should not consider the portion of the affidavit recounting Leever’s confession in determining whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrant.
In arguing this appeal, the State references Leever’s confession in its argument that the affidavit showed probable cause. But, we do not see how the State could ask the trial court to excise that part of the affidavit and then insinuate that this Court should consider it.
There is precedent for considering the remainder of an affidavit after a portion has been excised. For instance, false statements in an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant may be excised and the remaining content examined to determine if the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause.
Redding v. State,
192 Ga.
*530
App. 87 (
The unexcised portion of the supporting affidavit, standing alone, may not show probable cause for the search of Leever’s residence. The affidavit provides that there had been two recent burglaries; a black male and white female had been seen near the scene of one of the burglaries; a black male and white female driving а red Jeep Cherokee were seen acting “suspicious” near a residence; a vehicle matching that description had been stopped by a deputy; and the occupants of the vehicle had fled on foot and the female had been apprehended. However, in determining whether probable cause exists, the issuing magistrate may consider any sworn tеstimony given to the magistrate as well as facts in the affidavit. See
Dobbins v. State,
3. Porter claims the trial court erred by failing to suppress his in-custody statement to Investigator Harrell because his statement was improperly induced by hope of benefit. Under OCGA § 24-3-50, “[t]o makе a confession admissible, it must have been made voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury.” Porter claims Harrell promised that if Porter told the truth, Porter would not have to go to a jury trial and that Porter should tell the truth so the police could help him. The transcript does not support this characterization. At the Jackson-Denno hearing, defense counsel asked Harrell whether he told Porter “if he would cooperate with you and just tell the truth that that would make him avoid having to have a jury trial?” Harrell denied suggesting to Porter that Porter’s case would not have to go to court, and although Harrell agreed that “something along those lines” may have come up, he did not admit to making the statement to Porter. However, Harrеll did admit to saying to Porter, “you better decide right now whether you’re going to tell the truth and you’re going to let us try to help you or whether you’re just going to lie?” Harrell also *531 agreed telling Porter that if Porter lied, “we’re going to have to prove it. . . . You’re going to make it go into court in front of twelve people.”
After the
Jackson-Denno
hearing, the trial court concluded that Harrell did not make an improрer promise to help Porter. We agree. “[W]e have construed the ‘slightest hope of benefit’ as meaning the hope of a lighter sentence.”
Cooper v. State,
4. Porter claims the trial court erred by allowing similar transaction evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a trial court’s determination that similar transaction evidence is admissible.
Condra v. State,
After a hearing, the trial court ruled that certain similar transactions could be introduced into evidence, including the four transactions challenged by Porter: July 14, 2000 and June 3, 2001 confrontations between Porter and police officers while Porter was being held in the jail; the theft of the red Jeep Cherokеe; and a November 18, 1999 theft of a Ford Expedition. The two jailhouse confrontations involved physically resisting and striking law enforcement officers. We conclude that the trial court properly admitted these transactions to show Porter’s course of conduct in resisting law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. The evidence was relevant tо the obstruction of an officer charge in connection with Porter’s conduct toward Leaman. The evidence of the theft of the red Jeep Cherokee was directly relevant to the theft by receiving charge in that it showed Porter knew the Jeep was stolen. The evidence also showed that Porter stole the red Jeep Cherokee and a Ford Expeditiоn in a similar manner. Both instances involved Porter entering the vehicle in a parking lot while the owner was near, resulting in physical contact with the owner. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing evidence of the theft of the Ford Expedition because the evidence is probative of whether Porter also stole the Jeep Cherokee and so supports the theft by receiving charge with respect to the Jeep Cherokee. However, if the trial court had erred in allowing evidence concerning Porter’s theft of the Ford Expedition, it
*532
is highly probable that its admission did not contribute to the judgment. See
Tackett v. State,
5. Porter claims the trial court erred by not directing a verdict in his favor on the burglary charge. We disagree. In reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rеasonable doubt. See
Clark v. State,
6. Lastly, Porter claims that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the crime of theft by receiving as a lesser included offense of burglary. He argues that the evidence did not exclude the possibility that Porter was in possession of stolen goods but did not commit the offense of burglary. “[A] written request to charge a lesser included offense must always be given if there is any evidence that the defendant is guilty of the lesser included offense.”
State v. Alvarado,
Judgment affirmed.