The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Price, J.:
The majority interprets Commonwealth v. Boyer, 236 Pa. Superior Ct. 214 , 345 A.2d 187 (1975) as hinging upon the difference in the car color there involved when it concludes “the fact that the car was a different color precluded a majority of our Court from affirming the denial of the suppression motion.” I do not accept this distinction for after observing that the car involved in Boyer was actually white over blue and the confidential information the officers received by teletype apparently specified white over black, the majority in Boyer states: “The information that these officers received by teletype, without more, did not establish probable cause to stop a white over black Cadillac.” 236 Pa. Superior Ct. at 219 , 345 A.2d at 189-90 .
However, I agree that this case is not controlled by Commonwealth v. Swanger, 453 Pa. 107 , 307 A.2d 875 (1973).
*108 The facts before us, as correctly set forth by the majority, seem to place this case between Boyer, supra, and Commonwealth v. Brown, 228 Pa. Superior Ct. 158 , 323 A.2d 104 (1974).
Because the information here involved was specific in all details, I would hold that it is in that spectrum of possible fact situations that come close to Brown, supra. In Boyer , there is no description of the occupants of the car, while here the personal descriptive information closely matches the officer’s observation of appellant, including items of clothing, and the information also was specific as to the driving of the described car by appellant. The information was accurate as to a late-model dark green Ford station wagon. And finally, the first two numbers of the license matched, which, taken alone, would probably apply to thousands of cars in this Commonwealth, but which, considered with the accuracy of the other detail, confirms the accuracy of the officer’s information. Therefore while I disagree with the majority that a match of color alone is enough to distinguish Boyer, supra, I concur that in this appeal the information the officer received by police radio, standing alone and unsupported by corroborative testimony, does establish probable cause to stop this appellant and this car.
I concur in affirming the judgment of sentence.