Holder v. State, 53452
| Decision Date | 25 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53452,No. 2,53452,2 |
| Citation | 233 S.E.2d 501,141 Ga.App. 426 |
| Parties | D. E. HOLDER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bennett & Dantzler, G. F. Peterman, III, Macon, for appellant.
Clarence H. Clay, Jr., Sol., John R. Sikes, James M. Wootan, Asst. Sols., Macon, for appellee.
After his conviction for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, the defendant asserts as error the overruling of his motion to suppress certain physical evidence. It is contended that there was no basis to search the defendant.
The facts adduced on the hearing are as follows: The arresting officer testified that on January 30, 1976 at 1:25 a. m. he responded to a call regarding a suspicious vehicle with a suspicious person inside it; he found the defendant sitting at the wheel in a vehicle parked in the middle of Hurley Circle; that this was an area which had a number of resident burglaries and vandalism; that Hurley Circle was a horseshoe type street and was not well lighted. The officer approached the vehicle and asked the defendant to step outside and produce identification. The officer then questioned the defendant, asking "what he was doing there at that time of the morning, parked in that location; and he stated to me that he had stopped there to drink a beer before going home." The officer then testified: "This explanation did not satisfy my curiosity as to why he was there, and I had him turn around and place his hands on the car and advised him I was going to give him a frisk search." A small capsule bottle "approximately two, two and half inches in length" was found, containing marijuana. The defendant was then placed under arrest.
On cross-examination the officer stated he believed a frisk was necessary because it was not a well lit area, "we had to investigate a suspicious person" and "I was not satisfied with his explanation as to why he was there." Explaining this, the officer testified: "It just didn't seem logical that someone would stop at that particular area; and for my own personal safety is why I decided to frisk him." The officer admitted that when he felt the bottle in the defendant's right front pocket he did not know exactly what it was. It was brought out that a small .22 pistol was about that size but would be considerably heavier. Held:
In "stop and frisk" situations "(t)o justify a warrantless intrusion of this nature, the state must be able to point to specific and articulable facts, which, together with rational inferences drawn therefrom, reasonably warrant the intrusion . . . What...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State
...against the defendant on the trial of his case." See Smith v. State, 140 Ga.App. 94(1), 230 S.E.2d 101 (1976); Holder v. State, 141 Ga.App. 426, 233 S.E.2d 501 (1977); Carter v. State, 143 Ga.App. 166, 237 S.E.2d 656 (1977). See generally Brisbane v. State, 233 Ga. 339, 211 S.E.2d 294 (1974......
-
Ammons v. State, 68511
...found. Defendant contends that the officer had no "founded" suspicion for his conduct in searching the jacket, citing Holder v. State, 141 Ga.App. 426, 427, 233 S.E.2d 501, that there was insufficient "specific and articulable facts" to justify the search of his jacket. We disagree. The Hol......
-
Carter v. State
...was a limited investigative detention. It is not necessary to resolve this difference of opinion. This court has held in Holder v. State, 141 Ga.App. 426, 233 S.E.2d 501, that under facts substantially similar to those in the case sub judice, there was no showing of sufficient specific and ......