Kan v. State, A90A2371
| Decision Date | 25 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A2371,A90A2371 |
| Citation | 199 Ga.App. 170,404 S.E.2d 281 |
| Parties | KAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sonya J. Calhoun, for appellant.
Edward D. Lukemire, Dist. Atty., Robert E. Turner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant and a co-defendant, Michael Swaney, were jointly convicted of trafficking in cocaine. The appellant brings this appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial.
A vehicle owned and occupied by the appellant but being driven by Swaney was stopped by a state trooper about a mile outside of Perry, at a roadblock set up for the purpose of examining the drivers' licenses, vehicle registration papers, and insurance documentation of passing motorists. The trooper testified that when neither Swaney nor the appellant could produce a registration document for the vehicle, which had an out-of-state tag, he questioned them separately about their destination and the purpose of their trip and that the appellant responded that they were going deer hunting, while Swaney said they were going to Perry. Based on the discrepancies between their stories, the absence of any hunting gear, and the fact that the vehicle was headed away from rather than towards Perry, the trooper then asked them if they would consent to a search of the vehicle. He testified that both men consented and that, after they did so, he looked through the front window of the vehicle and observed under the front passenger seat a brown box which was taped shut. He stated that when questioned about the box, the appellant told him it contained old jewelry and gave him permission to open it. The trooper did so and discovered inside it the cocaine on which this prosecution was predicated. A further search of the vehicle conducted at the sheriff's office resulted in the discovery of a set of electronic scales in the trunk of the vehicle. The appellant denied that he had consented to any search of the vehicle, while Swaney testified that he had consented only to a search of the trunk. Held:
1. The appellant enumerates as error the denial of his motion to suppress the contraband, contending that the roadblock was being conducted as a mere pretext to search for drugs. The Georgia Supreme Court has held that the police may operate roadblocks "for the purpose of checking the legality of licensing of drivers and registration of vehicles," without the necessity of any particularized suspicion of wrongdoing. State v. Swift, 232 Ga. 535(1), 207 S.E.2d 459 (1974). In this case, the trooper testified that he was conducting a wholesale, nonselective credentials check of all drivers passing by the location in question. Thus, the initial detention of the vehicle at the roadblock was lawful. Furthermore, "[t]he extent of the stop in this case did not exceed the permissible scope of investigation by the officer to determine whether the driver was properly licensed and in lawful possession of the vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gibbons
...has a compelling interest in detecting those who would traffic in deadly drugs for personal profit.'"). 30. Kan v. State, 199 Ga.App. 170, 171(1), (2), 404 S.E.2d 281 (1991). 31. Delaware v. Prouse, supra at 658, 99 S.Ct. 1391; Sutton v. State, 223 Ga.App. 721, 723, 478 S.E.2d 910 32. Supra......
-
State v. Bibbins
...19. State v. Hall, supra at 415, 509 S.E.2d 701 (1998); accord O'Keefe v. State, supra at 525, 376 S.E.2d 406; Kan v. State, 199 Ga.App. 170, 171(1), (2), 404 S.E.2d 281 (1991). 20. State v. Akuba, 686 N.W.2d 406, 417-418 (S.D.2004); State v. Hickman, 335 N.J.Super. 623, 636-637, 763 A.2d 3......
-
Berry v. State
...244 Ga.App. 658, 661, 535 S.E.2d 841 (2000). 48. Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53, 54(1), 440 S.E.2d 646 (1994). 49. Kan v. State, 199 Ga.App. 170, 171(1), (2), 404 S.E.2d 281 (1991). 50. Pupo v. State, 187 Ga.App. 765, 766(2), 371 S.E.2d 219 (1988); accord Taylor v. State, 230 Ga.App. 749, 751(1)......
-
Crider v. State
...not to charge the jury on the presumption of possession, an equal access instruction is not required. See id.; Kan v. State, 199 Ga.App. 170, 171(3), 404 S.E.2d 281 (1991). Here, the trial court elected not to charge the jury on the presumption of possession, and thus there was no need to i......