because the officers had reasonable suspicion when the detention actually occurred. Mitchell’s reliance on United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 462 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 752, 166 L.Ed.2d 582 (2006) is misplaced. That case, like this one, involved a dispatch call regarding shots fired at a particular location. The call was an anonymous emergency call, stating simply that a black male in shorts and a red shirt had fired a gun in the air while arguing with a woman at a public housing project and that the gun was in the suspect’s pocket. This Court found that the dispatch description was “even vaguer” than the one in Florida v. J.L., Id. at 465 (quoting Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 268, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (“an anonymous call re ir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Patterson, 340 F.3d 368,
holding that although officers observation and stop of the defendants vehicle occurred outside of the officers geographical jurisdiction the officer still had jurisdiction where the officer was requested by a state trooper to stop the suspects vehicle holding a stop was effected where officers vehicle blocked defendants vehicle from proceeding holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support the investigatory stop of a vehicle in view of the time of day and the officers prior knowledge of reports of criminal activity in the area holding that officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle that was under surveillance on the basis of its making a right turn without signaling holding that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to support the investigatory stop of the defendants vehicle which was based only on a 911 hangup call from a residence in a culdesac and the fact that an officer saw the defendants vehicle turn off the culdesac four minutes later