dissenting.
The majority opinion remands this case, on the grounds that the trial court did not expressly approve Parker’s reservation of the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, and did not accept *193Parker’s guilty plea with that condition. I disagree with that conclusion, believe that we should consider the merits of this appeal, and further believe that we should reverse the trial court’s denial of Parker’s motion to suppress. For those reasons, I respectfully dissent.
1. As quoted by the majority itself, the record indicates that during the hearing on the guilty plea, counsel for Parker expressly reminded the trial court of the conditional nature of the guilty plea. The assistant district attorney was present and did not object to such a conditional plea (and likewise does not object on appeal), and in accepting Parker’s guilty plea the trial court obviously approved that condition.
Had there been any question over the trial court’s acceptance of Parker’s conditional plea, it is inconceivable that both the trial court and the prosecutor would have stood silently by as Parker ineffectively attempted to reserve his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. “[Considering the colloquy between defense and the court in this case and the fact that the State has not objected on appeal, defendant adequately reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression. [Cit.]” Starks v. State, 204 Ga. App. 185 (419 SE2d 75) (1992); see also Springsteen v. State, 206 Ga. App. 150 (424 SE2d 832) (1992).
Nothing in Mims v. State, 201 Ga. App. 277 (410 SE2d 824) (1991) requires a trial court literally to speak out “magic” words such as “I approve the reservation of the issue and accept the guilty plea with that condition.” The majority opinion imposes precisely that requirement upon trial courts.
Although the majority may object to the conditional plea allowed by Mims, the prosecution in this case agreed to it, and it is clear from the record and the trial court’s actions that the trial court approved the reservation and accepted the conditional plea. While one might question whether or not it is wise to allow the appeal of cases where there has been a guilty plea, that is not the issue before us, and Mims is the law in Georgia at this time. The procedural mandate of Mims was followed in this case, and the remand by the majority is unnecessary and inappropriate.
2. At the hearing on Parker’s motion to suppress, the arresting officer testified that around 2:30 p.m. on September 10, 1992, a reliable confidential informant gave him a tip that a red Honda containing LSD would arrive in Doerun between 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. that afternoon and would stop at the only Zippy Mart in that town. The Honda would be occupied by one individual named Wendy Weldon, another individual named Tracy, and possibly one other person. The officers did not believe they had time to apply for a search warrant, and instead proceeded to set up a stakeout of the location. Two police officers waited inside the Zippy Mart, and two officers remained in an *194unmarked car and followed the red Honda to the Zippy Mart when it arrived as the informant had predicted.
The officers in the unmarked car pulled into the Zippy Mart parking lot and blocked the exit of the red Honda. Tracy Adair was the driver, and Wendy Weldon and Parker were passengers in the Honda. All three occupants were ordered to get out of the car, and Adair consented to the search of the vehicle. Parker placed his hands on the roof of the car as instructed by the officers, and one of the officers searched him, first by removing his wallet and looking in it and then by reaching into Parker’s front pocket of his trousers, where over 130 “hits” of LSD were discovered. It is undisputed that Parker did not consent to this search. On appeal, Parker contends that his mere presence in the red Honda did not justify this warrantless search of his person, and I agree.
A person’s mere proximity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85 (100 SC 338, 62 LE2d 238) (1979). More specifically, by one’s mere presence in a suspected automobile, a person does not forfeit his immunities from searches of his person that he otherwise enjoys. United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 (68 SC 222, 92 LE2d 210) (1948).
OCGA § 17-5-28 authorizes an officer, during the execution of a search warrant, to detain or search any person in the place at the time in order to protect himself from attack, or to prevent the disposal or concealment of the subject matter of the warrant. That Code section pertains only to searches conducted pursuant to a warrant, and thus has no application in the instant case. State v. Stephens, 167 Ga. App. 707 (307 SE2d 518) (1983). Nevertheless, even under that statute, a search of an individual not named in the warrant may not be upheld where there is no nexus between that individual and the suspected criminal activity, other than mere presence, unless independent probable cause existed for a warrantless search of the individual. See State v. Anderson, 195 Ga. App. 793 (395 SE2d 50) (1990); but compare Travis v. State, 192 Ga. App. 695 (385 SE2d 779) (1989). The same principle must apply where no warrant is obtained.
In the instant case, although the tip received by the arresting officers revealed the identity of two occupants traveling in the car, it did not identify Parker. The only connection shown between Parker and the two occupants identified by the informant was his mere presence in the vehicle. When Parker exited the vehicle as instructed by the officers, he was cooperative and made no gesture or movement that would indicate a threat or concealment of evidence. Cf. Travis v. State, supra. Although the arresting officers articulated no concern that Parker may have been armed, under these circumstances the officers may have been authorized to perform a pat-down of Parker’s *195outer clothing for weapons, but the officers exceeded that permissible intrusion and conducted a complete search of Parker, which was unjustified by Parker’s mere presence in the vehicle or by any independent probable cause. State v. Stephens, supra; State v. Anderson, supra. For that reason, the trial court should have granted Parker’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during that search.
Decided December 1, 1993. James M. Mullís, for appellant. H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, Charles M. Stines, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Beasley and Judge Cooper join in this dissent.