Cunningham v. State
| Decision Date | 15 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 48893,48893,1 |
| Citation | 133 Ga.App. 305,211 S.E.2d 150 |
| Parties | Cam Ella CUNNINGHAM v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thomas H. Harper, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carter Goode, Raoul Lerow, Morris H. Rosenberg, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The Georgia Supreme Court having reversed our dismissal of the appeal (Cunningham v. State, 232 Ga. 416, 207 S.E.2d 48) such judgment is hereby vacated.
The defendant was indicted for the felonious possession of more than one ounce of marijuana. The defendant plead not guilty, filed a motion to suppress certain evidence, and was tried before a judge sitting without a jury. The trial judge, upon the stipulation of both counsel, heard evidence with respect to the motion to suppress and with respect to the guilt of the defendant in a non-bifurcated trial. At the conclusion of the evidence, in separate rulings the trial judge denied the defendant's motion to suppress and found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant was sentenced to serve two years and appeals to this court enumerating as error the failure to sustain the motion to suppress.
The evidence adduced with respect to the motion to suppress came from the testimony of two witnesses for the state. The first, Wayne Smith, testified that he was a special agent for the U.S. Department of Justice assigned to Metro Atlanta Narcotic Squad. He stated he received a telephone call from the Atlanta Police Department requesting assistance in an investigation; that 'they were in the process of obtaining a consent to search form executed by the resident of the house at 4554 Club Drive'; that he was requested to assist them by performing surveillance on that address until the consent to search form was executed. The witness furthermore recited that he was told 'there was suspected to be a large quantity of marijuana' and 'they expected a white van truck to arrive and transport the marijuana away, possibly.'
Smith testified that he arrived at the scene at approximately 1:45 and that about 3:45 a white van truck with a red strip down the side pulled into the driveway, went around behind the house and parked; that about an hour later the white van truck pulled out into the driveway and started into Club Drive; that thereupon 'we blocked the driveway and stopped the truck.' Mr. Smith testified that he and the other officers went up to the truck, that the other officers stayed at the door of the driver's side of the truck and that he went around behind the truck, checked the door of the truck, and went up to the house to secure that; that as he went by the driver's door and around to the back of the truck to check the back door he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the back of the truck; that he went up to the house to make sure that there was no one else in there, secured the house, and came back down to the truck where the padlock was forced.
In answer to the question 'I believe you said you went up to the cab where Miss Cunningham was, told her you were a police officer, to get out of the truck and to hold fast right there, is that right?' The witness answered: 'Something to that effect,' and further stated that the defendant did get out of the truck and stood at the hood. Smith testified that upon searching the house they found another individual who said she was a baby sitter, along with approximately 200 lbs. of suspected marijuana; that upon arrival of other police officers that the rear panel of the truck was broken into and searched and that between 1200 and 1300 lbs. of marijuana were found in the truck.
The other witness for the state, Sergeant Loumakis of the Atlanta Narcotic Squad, testified that 'we had a consent to search 4554 Club Drive,' that the consent was to search Marisa Holt's house; that (she) was the person that delivered to me the night before 100 lbs. of marijuana.' The witness stated when he arrived at the address in question, Special Agent Wayne Smith and Hubbard of Metro were there; that when other officers of the Atlanta Police Department arrived with the consent to search they proceeded into the house and also opened the truck. The witness stated that he did not take part in the stopping of the van; that the defendant was already out of the truck and standing along the side of it at the time he arrived. He stated that when he approached within 10 ft. of the truck he could detect a strong odor of marijuana.
The consent to search was ruled inadmissible. Held:
' It is not required that the officer have legal evidence of the suspected act, and it is not necessary that he be conviced of the violation beyond a reasonable doubt, the limit of the requirement is that the facts which have come to the officer's attention would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man, in the same circumstances, to believe that contraband is illegally possessed in the vehicle to be searched.' 79 C.J.S. § 66 Searches and Seizures, p. 839.
Georgia has recognized that less stringent requirements apply to a warrantless search of an automobile than to a permanent dwelling. Underhill v. State, 129 Ga.App. 65, 68, 198 S.E.2d 703. Accord: Johnson v. State,126 Ga.App. 93, 94, 189 S.E.2d 900; Gondor v. State, 129 Ga.App. 665(1),200 S.E.2d 477.
It is also true under some circumstances that the Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 158, 45 S.Ct. 280, 287, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790).' Anderson v. State, 123 Ga.App. 57, 59, 179 S.E.2d 286, 288.
Information furnished between members of a police department conducting a common investigation may be considered as grounds authorizing a search. Buck v. State, 127 Ga.App. 72, 74, 192 S.E.2d 432; Meneghan v. State, 132 Ga.App. 380, 383, 208 S.E.2d 150; United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 110, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684; United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. State
...vehicle for contraband or "fruits of crime." See Anderson v. State, 123 Ga.App. 57, 59, 179 S.E.2d 286 (1970); Cunningham v. State, 133 Ga.App. 305, 307-308, 211 S.E.2d 150 (1974). Since the search of appellant's vehicle was not based upon probable cause, it may only be justified, under the......
-
McDonald v. State
...offend against the law." Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 158, 45 S.Ct. 280, 287, 69 L.Ed. 543, supra; Cunningham v. State, 133 Ga.App. 305, 308, 211 S.E.2d 150 (1974); Peters v. State, 148 Ga.App. 850, 851, 253 S.E.2d 214 (1979). Therefore, since the search in the instant case was p......
-
Olson v. State
...to authorize the issuance of the search warrant. Caffo v. State, 247 Ga. 751(2), 279 S.E.2d 678 (1981); Cunningham v. State, 133 Ga.App. 305, 309, 211 S.E.2d 150 (1974). Nevertheless, appellant attacks the warrant on the ground that the information relied upon was insufficient since Cox's i......
-
Allen v. State
...known to the officer at the time.' Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 145, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1923, 32 L.Ed.2d 612.' Cunningham v. State, 133 Ga.App. 305, 309, 211 S.E.2d 150, 153. 2. Appellant further contends that even if the truck was lawfully stopped, the 'plain view' rule cannot apply becaus......