tipster’s observation of the act of drinking and the possibility of further consumption contained sufficient signs of intoxication to justify a traffic stop. Id. at 158; see also Lamb v. State, 269 Ga.App. 335, 604 S.E.2d 207, 208 (2004) (upholding a traffic stop based on a tip from a bartender who told authorities by phone “that a man who was too intoxicated to drive was leaving the restaurant, and that he would not let her call him a cab”); State v. Amelio, 197 N.J. 207, 962 A.2d 498, 502 (2008) (upholding a stop based on a tip containing a teenager’s bare assertion defendant was “drunk” and observing that “ ‘drunk’ has a commonly understood meaning and the signs of drunkenness are matters of common knowledge and experience”); State v. Lamb, 168 Vt. 194, 720 A.2d 1101, 1102-06 (1998) (<HOLDING>). This is not a case like Florida v. J.L., 529
holding that officer was objectively justified in making traffic stop where he acted on the strength of other officers information of drugtrafficking by passenger holding that a traffic stop was more than justified where a 911 caller reported that the defendant was very upset and intoxicated and was leaving a residence because of the impossibility that such information could have been supplied by anyone but a knowledgeable insider holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop holding that a vehicles passenger had been seized and was entitled to challenge the traffic stop holding that because the defendant could not have reasonably believed that the third person would have been justified in using force the trial courts finding of guilt was supported by substantial evidence