Martasin v. State, 59673
| Decision Date | 17 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59673,59673 |
| Citation | 271 S.E.2d 2,155 Ga.App. 396 |
| Parties | MARTASIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Reid W. Kennedy, Reid G. Kennedy, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Benjamin H. Oehlert, III, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of controlled substances. The issue before us involves the legality of his arrest and the subsequent removal of the drugs in question from the console of his vehicle.
A Roswell police officer began pursuit of appellant for a speeding violation in the City of Roswell, Fulton County. The chase was extensive and eventually terminated in Cobb County after appellant's car struck another vehicle. The officer testified that at one point the appellant had attempted to run him down as he approached appellant's car while it was stopped in Fulton County. After this event, which formed the basis of the aggravated assault charge, appellant drove off again and was pursued into Cobb County.
The appellant was removed from his car and placed under arrest. His right front tire had unraveled and separated during the chase. The car remained on the highway in a damaged condition after the appellant was apprehended. A Roswell police sergeant testified that pursuant to regulations he impounded the appellant's car and made an inventory of its contents before a wrecker removed it to an impoundment lot in Roswell. It was at this time that the controlled substances were discovered in the console of the car. The parties stipulated that there was a regulation signed by the Roswell Chief of Police requiring "that every officer who arrests a driver and/or owner of a vehicle who is taken into custody will make an inventory of this vehicle for valuables."
Appellant contends on appeal that the warrantless search of his vehicle violated both federal and state law and that the state failed to carry its burden of proof on his motion to suppress. Held :
1. When vehicles are impounded, police routinely follow caretaking procedures by securing and inventorying the cars' contents. These procedures have been widely sustained as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364(2), 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). This court has approved inventory searches of an impounded automobile after a defendant's arrest on traffic-related charges. See Carson v. State, 241 Ga. 622, 247 S.E.2d 68 (1978). We have also held "that when a driver is arrested and removed from his vehicle, and the vehicle is on a highway or other public property, and there is no third person present to whom it is or might properly be turned over, or for some other sufficient reason a decision to impound it is properly made, and where in connection with such impoundment an 'inventory search' is a recognized and routine procedure, contraband which appears in plain view in the course of such inventory is properly seized, and may be introduced in evidence ..." Highland v. State, 144 Ga.App. 594, 241 S.E.2d 477 (1978).
Although appellant contends that a friend of his was present at the arrest scene to whom the vehicle might have been turned over, there is no evidence that this person offered to accept the responsibility for the vehicle or that his presence was even known to the police.
2. The evidence shows beyond dispute the necessity and propriety of the pursuit and arrest of appellant in Cobb County. "Reason compels this court to conclude that the ... policeman's legal authority under the hot pursuit doctrine included both the power to arrest and the power to perform other normal police functions incidental to and necessitated by the arrest." Wooten v. State, 135 Ga.App. 97, 99, 217 S.E.2d 350 (1975). The trial court was correct in denying the motion to suppress.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fortune
...United States v. Martin, 566 F.2d 1143 (10th Cir.1977); Schwasta v. United States, 392 A.2d 1071 (D.C.1978); Martasin v. State, 155 Ga.App. 396, 271 S.E.2d 2 (1980); People v. Clark, 65 Ill.2d 169, 2 Ill.Dec. 578, 357 N.E.2d 798 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918, 97 S.Ct. 2184, 53 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Poss v. State
...98, 217 S.E.2d 350 (1975); Shirley v. City of College Park, 102 Ga.App. 10(2), 115 S.E.2d 469 (1960). See also Martasin v. State, 155 Ga.App. 396, 397(2), 271 S.E.2d 2 (1980). Askew v. State, 145 Ga.App. 164(1), 243 S.E.2d 334 (1978); City of Winterville v. Strickland, 127 Ga.App. 716, 718(......
-
Brown v. State
...defendant's house was based upon Officer Norton's "hot pursuit" of the subject, such arrest was a lawful activity. Martasin v. State, 155 Ga.App. 396(2), 271 S.E.2d 2 (1980); Annot., 76 ALR2d 1432 § 2. In light of the uncontroverted evidence of record showing Officer Norton's hot pursuit of......
-
Ivory v. State
...search (which appellant does not challenge) had been conducted after the automobile had been impounded. Compare Martasin v. State, 155 Ga.App. 396, 271 S.E.2d 2 (1980). This enumeration is without merit. 2. Appellant insists that it was erroneous for him to be indicted and sentenced under t......