Mann v. State, A90A0997
| Decision Date | 04 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0997,A90A0997 |
| Citation | 397 S.E.2d 17,196 Ga.App. 730 |
| Parties | MANN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Samuel G. Oliver, Darien, for appellant.
Dupont K. Cheney, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, carrying a concealed weapon, driving a motor vehicle at a time when his driver's license was suspended, and failure to drive in a single lane. He contends on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the contraband upon which the cocaine trafficking conviction was based.
A state trooper stopped the appellant for "weaving" in and out of his lane of traffic on I-95 in McIntosh County. Asked for his driver's license, the appellant responded that it had been suspended; and asked about the ownership of the vehicle, he responded that it belonged to a passenger, Jeffrey Olreidge, who had been asleep in the back seat. The trooper thereupon questioned Olreidge separately about the nature of their trip and became "suspicious" when the latter's responses were inconsistent with those previously given by the appellant. Consequently, while radioing his headquarters to obtain a records check on the appellant, the trooper requested a backup unit. Approximately 10 to 15 minutes later, two sheriff's deputies arrived in response to this request.
Upon the arrival of the deputies, Olreidge consented in writing to a search of his vehicle, "including luggage and contents thereof." While the trooper was preparing the consent form for Olreidge's signature, one of the deputies asked the two suspects whether they had any weapons. Olreidge responded that there was a gun in the car, and the appellant made a statement suggesting that he had a weapon on his person. The appellant was then subjected to a patdown search, resulting in the seizure of a small handgun from a lower pocket on one of his pant legs.
While one of the deputies was removing a garment bag from the trunk during the ensuing search of the vehicle, the appellant yelled out that this bag belonged to him. The deputy in question testified that he responded by saying, and that the appellant replied as follows: The appellant denied having made such a statement. The cocaine upon which his trafficking conviction was based was discovered during the succeeding search of this garment bag. Held:
1. The appellant contends that Olreidge's consent to the search of the vehicle was invalid because 25 minutes had elapsed between the time the vehicle was stopped and the time he signed the consent form, thereby converting the initially lawful detention of Olreidge into an unlawful arrest. However, it is apparent from the trooper's testimony that about half this time was occupied with the initial questioning of the two men, leaving an additional delay of only 10 to 15 minutes before Olreidge gave his consent to the search. Compare Schmidt v. State, 188 Ga.App. 85, 372 S.E.2d 440 (1988) (); Radowick v. State, 145 Ga.App. 231, 244 S.E.2d 346 (1978) (). The appellant is in any event without standing to object to the search on the ground that it violated Olreidge's Fourth Amendment rights, inasmuch as " ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...of a jury and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support them." [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Mann v. State, 196 Ga.App. 730(3), 397 S.E.2d 17. Inasmuch as two of the officers present before the search testified that appellant verbally consented to the search, the tr......
-
King v. State, A93A0802
...Such factual and credibility determinations are generally accorded great deference by a reviewing court. See Mann v. State, 196 Ga.App. 730, 731(3), 397 S.E.2d 17 (1990) (motion to suppress); George v. State, 262 Ga. 436, 437(2), 421 S.E.2d 67 (1992) (whether State has rebutted prima facie ......
-
Gray v. State
...236 Ga.App. 35, 37(1), 510 S.E.2d 886 (1999); Walker v. State, 228 Ga.App. 509, 510(1), 493 S.E.2d 193 (1997); Mann v. State, 196 Ga.App. 730, 731(1), 397 S.E.2d 17 (1990). 6. Brown, supra, 239 Ga.App. at 676, 522 S.E.2d 41. For purposes of the United States Supreme Court's analysis in Hoda......
-
Roundtree v. State, A94A0093
...did not go beyond the minimal intrusion authorized by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Mann v. State, 196 Ga.App. 730, 397 S.E.2d 17 (1990); but compare Schmidt v. State, 188 Ga.App. 85, 372 S.E.2d 440 (1988). Additionally, because the drug dog alerted to the......