” of being involved in the criminal activity. Id. LaFave provides the following six factors which, among others, may be considered in determining what facts and circumstances establish this “reasonable possibility” and would justify stopping a motor vehicle or possible offender: (1) the particularity of the description of the offender or the vehicle in which he fled; (2) the size of the area in which the offender might be found, as indicated by such facts as the elapsed time since the crime occurred; (3) the number of persons about in that area; (4) the known or probable direction of the offender’s flight; (5) observed activity by the particular person stopped; and (6) knowledge or suspicion that the person or vehicle stopped has been involved in other criminality of the t pp.2000) (<HOLDING>). But see Van Patten v. State, 16 Ark.App. 83,
holding where first officer was informed by second officer that defendant cursed at her young daughter while driving by in vehicle first officer could have formed reasonable belief that defendant engaged in disorderly conduct to justify stop of defendants vehicle holding traffic stop was legal where eyewitness told officer defendant kicked over parking sign and officer observed defendant yelling and gesturing in parking lot officer had at least reasonable grounds to suspect defendant of having committed disorderly conduct holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger holding officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity necessary to support traffic stop where officer received dispatch that defendant committed disorderly conduct and record check showed parked truck was registered to defendant