Maxwell v. State

Decision Date29 May 2001
Docket NumberNo. A01A0746.,A01A0746.
Citation549 S.E.2d 534,249 Ga. App. 747
PartiesMAXWELL v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Drew Findling, Atlanta, Cris E. Schneider, for appellant.

Steven L. Harris, Solicitor-General, for appellee.

POPE, Presiding Judge.

Stephen Charles Maxwell appeals his conviction on two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol, one count of driving without a valid Georgia driver's license, and one count of improper license plate. He challenges the court's decision to deny his motion to suppress.

The evidence shows that on February 3, 2000, Maxwell's wife was arrested by the Peachtree City Police for driving under the influence of alcohol. Mrs. Maxwell told the police that prior to her arrest, she had been drinking with her husband at the country club. She also told them the type of vehicle that her husband was driving. That officer told another officer, who situated his patrol car in a place where he could observe Maxwell as he left the country club. That officer eventually had to leave his post, and a third officer, Officer Smucker, replaced him. Smucker had been informed of Mrs. Maxwell's statements. Eventually, Smucker saw Maxwell's Ford pickup truck and began to follow it. At this point, Smucker testified, "It was my intention to find a violation and stop the vehicle." The truck had a Texas license tag, and Smucker decided to call in the tag. He explained that was the only way he could determine if the tag was valid. He said, "Texas license tags, unlike Georgia license tags, do not have expirations in the back of the tag. They actually have a sticker in the front windshield of the vehicle. So by just observing his Texas tag, I had no way of knowing what the expiration was. You have to run the tag, and that's what I did." He received a report that the license plate had expired in December 1999. Smucker then pulled Maxwell over which led to his arrest for the charges for which he was convicted.

In two separate enumerations, Maxwell contends that the stop was pretextual and that therefore it violated his rights under the United States and Georgia Constitutions. We disagree.

Under the U.S. Constitution, a traffic stop is reasonable where the police have "probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred," Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), or reasonable suspicion that the car's occupants are involved in criminal activity. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985). And a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause "can rest upon the collective knowledge of the police when there is some degree of communication between them, instead of the knowledge of the arresting officer alone. [Cit.]" Burgeson v. State, 267 Ga. 102, 105(3)(a), 475...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State v. Flores
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 16 Julio 2003
    ...214 Ga. App. 408, 409, 448 S.E.2d 219 (1994). Even considering the collective knowledge of the officers, see Maxwell v. State, 249 Ga.App. 747, 748, 549 S.E.2d 534 (2001), and the totality of the circumstances, I cannot find that the stop of Flores and Renteria was based on probable cause t......
  • Reyes v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 16 Noviembre 2015
    ...reasonable suspicion of a separate violation of law from the basis given by the officer for the stop. See, e.g., Maxwell v. State, 249 Ga.App. 747, 748, 549 S.E.2d 534 (2001) (officer who stopped vehicle based on probable cause of a traffic violation also had reasonable suspicion of a separ......
  • Hall v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 23 Agosto 2019
    ...is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred."); accord Maxwell v. State , 249 Ga. App. 747, 748, 549 S.E.2d 534 (2001).9 Hammont v. State , 309 Ga. App. 395, 397, 710 S.E.2d 598 (2011) (punctuation omitted); see Partlow v. State , 346 ......
  • Dawson v. State, No. A04A1709.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 6 Enero 2005
    ...improper testimony at trial, defendant waived his right to challenge the evidence on appeal). 10. See, e.g., Maxwell v. State, 249 Ga.App. 747, 748, 549 S.E.2d 534 (2001) (while responding to report from another officer of potential DUI, officer ran driver's Texas license tag, which was rep......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT