Chaney v. State, A92A1789

• Decision Date: 12 January 1993
• Docket Number: No. A92A1789,A92A1789
• Citation: 207 Ga.App. 72,427 S.E.2d 63
• Parties: CHANEY v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 63

427 S.E.2d 63

207 Ga.App. 72

CHANEY v. The STATE.

No. A92A1789.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 12, 1993.

Alexandrina H. Douglass, Marietta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carl P. Greenberg, William C. Akins, Anita Wallace, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

CARLEY, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of possession of cocaine. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury's guilty verdict and enumerates as error only the denial of his motion to suppress.

Appellant urges that the cocaine was discovered as the result of an unauthorized seizure of his person. However, "[a] police officer may make a brief, investigatory stop, provided the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person stopped has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity, and the nature and extent of the detention is minimally intrusive. [Cit.] In the instant case, the officer[s'] personal observation[s] of what appeared to be a drug sale provided sufficient basis for conducting a brief, investigatory stop." Hamrick v. State, 197 Ga.App. 89, 90(1), 397 S.E.2d 503 (1990). "Momentary detention and questioning are permissible if based upon specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, justify a reasonable scope of inquiry not based on mere inclination, caprice or harassment." State v. Misuraca, 157 Ga.App. 361, 364, 276 S.E.2d 679 (1981). "Although it is obvious that every arrest includes detention, not every detention is an arrest...." Radowick v. State, 145 Ga.App. 231, 238(3), 244 S.E.2d 346 (1978).

Not only were the officers authorized to effectuate a brief, investigatory stop of appellant, they were also authorized to conduct a pat-down of appellant to determine whether he was armed. See generally Hayes v. State, 202 Ga.App. 204, 414 S.E.2d 321 (1991). The encounter did not become an illegal "arrest" simply because the officers requested that appellant step some 20 feet into a better-lighted area in order to conduct the investigation and pat-down. " 'An officer may take appropriate self-protective measures when he lawfully confronts an individual and reasonably believes him to be armed or otherwise dangerous to the officer or others. The usual police response will be to conduct a frisk, patting the individual's clothing in search of a weapon. (Cits.) Where an immediate frisk is not feasible, however, the officer will be justified in approaching the suspect with weapon drawn or at the ready. (Cits.) The key question in all cases remains whether the protective measures taken by the officer were reasonable under the circumstances.' [Cits.]"...