In Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) (297 S.E.2d 234) (1982), the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the motion for failure to "state facts" because the defendant's motion "was sufficient to put the state on notice as to the type of search involved (without warrant vs. with warrant), which witness to bring to the hearing on the motion, and the legal issues to be resolved at that hearing." Id. In a recent decision, The Court applied Lavelle and found a motion to suppress sufficient where it contained the following information: facts showing the date of the search, the general location of the search (i.e., the defendant's vehicle), the items seized in the search, the fact that the search was conducted without a warrant, and the conclusion that the search was unsupported by probable cause or articulable suspicion. State v. Barnett, 233 Ga. App. 496, 497 (1) (504 S.E.2d 531) (1998).