Brisendine v. State
| Decision Date | 16 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 48666,No. 2,48666,2 |
| Citation | 130 Ga.App. 249,203 S.E.2d 308 |
| Parties | Daniel S. BRISENDINE v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Driebe & McAllister, J. Dunham McAllister, Jonesboro, for appellant.
William H. Ison, Dist. Atty., Robert E. Keller, Jonesboro, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Defendant appeals with a certificate from an order overruling his motion to suppress evidence. At the hearing the testimony of the officers was that they observed defendant's car weaving dangerously while traveling down the highway; the officers stopped the vehicle and observed that when the defendant stepped from the car he appeared intoxicated (unsteady on his feet and his pupils were dilated); he was arrested for driving under the influence and driving without a license; while frisking the defendant for weapons, the officers observed a plastic bag of marijuana hanging out of his coat pocket; one officer went back to the car and asked the passenger if he had been drinking; the passenger acted strangely and was asked to step out of the car; when he stepped out of the car, one officer observed what he believed to be marijuana vegetation and marijuana seeds on the floorboard where the passenger's feet had been; the officer looked into a large plastic garbage bag that had been between the passenger's feet; the bag contained five small green plastic bags of marijuana, two small clear plastic bags of marijuana and two blocks of marijuana. The defendant testified in direct contradiction to several aspects of the officers' testimony. The motion to suppress was directed toward the contents of the plastic bag found in the car.
1. The credibility of the witnesses is for the trial judge's determination. Simmons v. State, 111 Ga.App. 553, 554, 142 S.E.2d 308; Goggans v. State, 14 Ga.App. 822, 82 S.E. 357. His judgment will 'not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support it.' West v. West, 228 Ga. 397, 398, 185 S.E.2d 763, 765. Therefore, where there is a conflict in the evidence on the motion to suppress, the ruling of the trial court will be upheld where there is any evidence to authorize a finding in support of his order. Williams v. State, 119 Ga.App. 557, 167 S.E.2d 756; Hunt v. State, 8 Ga.App. 374, 377, 69 S.E. 42.
2. Under the 'plain view' doctrine, evidence discovered by mere observation of things in plain view of the officer does not constitute a search. Ker v. California, 374...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatcher v. State, 52645
...at this point, and we are bound by the trial court's resolution of any factual disputes on a motion to suppress. Brisendine v. State, 130 Ga.App. 249(1), 203 S.E.2d 308. The inescapable conclusion to be reached from an examination of the witnesses' testimony and the trial court's statements......
-
Swift v. State
...ruling of the trial court will be upheld where there is any evidence to authorize a finding in support of his order.' Brisendine v. State, 130 Ga.App. 249, 203 S.E.2d 308; Williams v. State, 119 Ga.App. 557, 167 S.E.2d 756; 22 A C.J.S. 645, Criminal Law § 657.34 (1961). See Raines v. State,......
-
Jones v. State
...mutant child of relatively normal parents. Swift placed its primary reliance on a predecessor in this court, Brisendine v. State, 130 Ga.App. 249, 203 S.E.2d 308 (1974). Also, Swift relied on West v. West, 228 Ga. 397, 185 S.E.2d 763 (1971), a case likewise relied upon in Brisendine, supra.......
-
Walker v. State
...ruling of the trial court will be upheld where there is any evidence to authorize a finding in support of his order.' Brisendine v. State, 130 Ga.App. 249 (203 S.E.2d 308). As the search for the tag, if made after arrest, was incidental to the arrest for improper tag registration and as the......