the existence of an articulable suspicion.”) (citations and emphasis omitted). 19 See State v. Diamond, 223 Ga. App. 164, 166 (477 SE2d 320) (1996) (“The specific articulable suspicion must he based on the totality of the circumstances — objective observations, known patterns of certain kinds of lawbreakers, and inferences drawn and deductions made by trained law enforcement personnel.”). 20 See Melanson, supra at 854-855; Brown, supra; Garmon, supra at 677 (2) (recognizing that “in cases where there are some reasonable articulable grounds for suspicion, the state’s interest in the maintenance of community peace and security outweigh the momentary inconvenience and indignity of investigatory detention”). 21 Sanders v. State, 252 Ga. App. 609, 614-615 (2) (556 SE2d 505) (2001) (<HOLDING>). 22 See Sanders, supra; Scott v. State, 201
holding that challenge to evidentiary sufficiency was waived where defendant stipulated before the trial court to all elements of the offense holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt holding that two offenses are separate for the purposes of  4a12a1 where all the elements of the first offense occurred before any activity forming the basis of the second offense holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court