Burtts v. State
Decision Date | 04 February 1994 |
Docket Number | No. A93A2253,A93A2253 |
Parties | BURTTS v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Manning & Leipold, Calvin A. Leipold, Jr., Decatur, for appellant.
Cheryl F. Custer, Dist. Atty., Alan S. Clarke, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was charged by accusation of driving under the influence of alcohol and failure to use a seat belt. The court denied a motion to suppress/motion in limine which alleged illegality of his arrest. Pursuant to Mims v. State, 201 Ga.App. 277, 278(1), 410 S.E.2d 824 (1991), the court permitted a plea of guilty with a preservation of his right to appeal the ruling on the motion.
The trial court found that in March 1993 a trooper stopped appellant's 1979 vehicle because it had a drive-out license plate rather than a regular license plate. His policy is to stop all used vehicles with drive-out license plates to see if they have proper registration and whether they have properly applied to purchase a license plate. Appellant produced the required paperwork to show that he had just purchased the vehicle. He was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol based on Lloyd's observations of him after he was stopped. The court held that the investigatory stop was lawful and denied the motion, having concluded that a drive-out license plate is only an advertisement for a car dealership and has no more legal authority than no license plate at all.
Appellant argues that OCGA § 40-2-20(a) gives the purchaser of a motor vehicle which does not have a current and valid Georgia registration 21 days from the date of purchase within which to register and obtain a license to operate it. Although true, it does not mean that if a person operates a motor vehicle within the 21-day grace period without a valid license plate, he is exempt from an investigative stop.
OCGA § 40-2-8(b) provides, This contemplates that the driver of a newly purchased vehicle may be stopped by police because the vehicle does not exhibit a valid numbered license...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berry v. State
...circumstances.15 For these reasons, I agree with the majority that Watson should be overruled and agree with Presiding Judge Pope that Burtts v. State16 should be overruled.17 I disagree with the dissent that the officer was justified in stopping Berry. Probable cause is not satisfied by a ......
-
State v. Aguirre, A97A1570
...pickup truck was issued by the State of Ohio. The cases of Edwards v. State, 219 Ga.App. 239, 464 S.E.2d 851, supra, and Burtts v. State, 211 Ga.App. 840, 440 S.E.2d 727 relied upon by the State, involve vehicles which were stopped because they failed to display any license tag. In Edwards,......
-
Bius v. State
...Ruffin's special concurrence, joined by two other judges, id. at 883-888, 547 S.E.2d 664, called for overruling Burtts v. State, 211 Ga.App. 840, 440 S.E.2d 727 (1994). Although a clear majority of this court wanted Burtts overruled, our opinions in Berry did not explicitly overrule it. The......
- State v. Stamey, A93A2181