Jones v. State, 74955

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: McMURRAY
• Citation: Jones v. State, 361 S.E.2d 693, 184 Ga.App. 328 (Ga. App. 1987)
• Decision Date: 28 September 1987
• Docket Number: No. 74955,74955
• Parties: JONES v. The STATE.

Page 693

361 S.E.2d 693

184 Ga.App. 328

JONES v. The STATE.

No. 74955.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 28, 1987.

Steven E. Lister, Jonesboro, for appellant.

Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. He appeals, enumerating error upon the denial of his motion to suppress. Held:

"[T]he trial court's decision on questions of fact and credibility at a suppression hearing must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. [Cits.]" Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840, 844, 213 S.E.2d 689. In the case sub judice, the testimony of defendant was in conflict with that of the arresting officer. Nevertheless, the evidence was more than sufficient to authorize the trial court's finding that the contraband seized from defendant was not seized illegally and that he consented freely and voluntarily to the search of his person and personal belongings.

The arresting officer testified that defendant was approached in the concourse (at the Atlanta airport) in a non-threatening manner and that defendant was questioned about his identity and itinerary. The officer asked (but did not demand) to see defendant's identification and plane ticket. This testimony demonstrates that defendant had no objective reason to believe he was not free to terminate the encounter and proceed on his way. Voight v. State, 169 Ga.App. 653, 654, 314 S.E.2d 487.

The arresting officer also testified that defendant voluntarily gave his consent to the search of his person and his carry-on luggage. He averred that he asked defendant if he would consent to a search of his person and personal property and that defendant responded "okay." He then inquired whether defendant desired the search to take place in the concourse or in private. Defendant expressed his preference for a privately conducted search. In a private room, defendant was read his rights regarding consent searches. He was advised that if illegal objects were found in the search, they could be used against him in court. He was also advised that he could permit or refuse a search of his person and personal property and that he could consult with an attorney before making his decision. Initially, defendant indicated that he did not understand his rights and he asked the arresting officer to read them again. The officer read defendant his rights a second time and he asked defendant if he understood them. Defendant replied, "Yeah, go ahead." A search of defendan...