Mcneil v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | A21A1600 |
| Citation | 866 S.E.2d 249,362 Ga.App. 85 |
| Parties | MCNEIL v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Arora Law Firm, Devin Austin Rafus, for Appellant.
John Herbert Cranford Jr., District Attorney, Newnan, David Jared Parrish, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.
Following the grant of his application for interlocutory appeal, Carl W. McNeil appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person during a traffic stop. McNeil contends that the officer who conducted the traffic stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights by impermissibly prolonging the stop beyond the time required to fulfill its purpose without having a reasonable articulable suspicion of other illegal activity. McNeil further contends that the pat-down search of his person conducted by the officer violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer did not have a reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.
"When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court must construe the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to the factual findings and judgment of the trial court." (Footnote omitted.) State v. Allen , 298 Ga. 1, 2 (1) (a), 779 S.E.2d 248 (2015). In conducting its review, "an appellate court generally must limit its consideration of the disputed facts to those expressly found by the trial court." Hughes v. State , 296 Ga. 744, 746 (1), 770 S.E.2d 636 (2015). "An appellate court may, however, consider facts that definitively can be ascertained exclusively by reference to evidence that is uncontradicted and presents no questions of credibility, such as facts indisputably discernible from a videotape." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Caffee v. State , 303 Ga. 557, 559 (1), 814 S.E.2d 386 (2018). See Allen , 298 Ga. at 2 (1) (a), 779 S.E.2d 248. Viewed in this light, the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing, which included the law enforcement officer's testimony and the audio and visual footage of the traffic stop recorded by his body camera, reflects the following.
On March 20, 2019, at 10:41 p.m., a sergeant with the Grantville Police Department was on patrol on I-85 when he saw a sedan with a Florida tag following too closely behind another vehicle. The sergeant initiated a traffic stop, and the sedan pulled over on an exit ramp. After exiting his patrol car, the sergeant approached the sedan and saw that there were two occupants – a female driver and a male front seat passenger, McNeil.
While standing at the driver's side window, the sergeant asked the driver for her license and inquired whether the vehicle belonged to her, and she handed her Florida license to the sergeant and informed him that the sedan was a rental in her name. The sergeant explained to the driver the reason for the traffic stop and asked to see the rental agreement, which the driver handed to the sergeant after she and McNeil rummaged through the sedan. The sergeant asked if there were any weapons inside the sedan, and the driver and McNeil said that there were not. At the sergeant's request, McNeil also handed his Florida license to the sergeant. According to the sergeant, McNeil seemed very nervous.
Approximately four minutes into the traffic stop, the sergeant informed the driver that he planned to issue her a written warning for the traffic violation and asked her to walk with him to his patrol car, and she complied. While walking to the patrol car, the sergeant asked the driver if there was a reason she was driving so closely to the other vehicle, and she explained that she owned an organic soy candle-making company and was tired because she and her boyfriend, McNeil, had driven from Pensacola, Florida, to deliver some candles. The sergeant testified that he found her story suspicious because, in his experience with drug interdiction, he had become aware of people concealing drugs inside candles and then melting off the wax.
While the driver remained beside the patrol car, the sergeant ran her and McNeil's licenses through a crime record database and determined that there were no outstanding warrants or license issues. Approximately six minutes had elapsed since the beginning of the traffic stop.
After checking the licenses, the sergeant exited his patrol car and told the driver to pay more attention while driving. The sergeant, who continued to hold the licenses and rental agreement, then asked the driver how long she and McNeil had been gone that day. The driver replied that they had left Pensacola that morning and had been in Atlanta around 5:00 p.m. According to the sergeant, he spoke with the driver after running the licenses to make sure she was not impaired, and he observed no signs of impairment and decided not to conduct any field sobriety tests.
While speaking with the driver, the sergeant saw McNeil rummaging around inside the sedan. After the driver answered questions about her travel itinerary, the sergeant told her to stay by his patrol car while he went to speak with McNeil. Approximately seven minutes into the traffic stop, the sergeant then walked over to the passenger side of the sedan while continuing to hold the licenses and rental agreement. During his subsequent questioning of McNeil, the sergeant unfolded the rental agreement and reviewed it, but he did not ask McNeil any specific questions about the agreement.
The sergeant confirmed with McNeil the information on his Florida license, which listed a Pensacola home address. The sergeant also asked McNeil where he and the driver were coming from, and McNeil said Atlanta. McNeil also said that he was riding with his girlfriend who had a candle business and was selling candles, and that they had left home that afternoon. The sergeant inquired if there were any weapons or anything illegal in the sedan, and McNeil said no. The sergeant then asked McNeil if he had ever been in trouble, and McNeil answered in the affirmative and said that his last offense was for being a "habitual driver" in Florida, but that he had not been in prison or in trouble for ten years.
Following his questioning of McNeil, the sergeant walked back over to the driver. At that point, it was approximately eight minutes into the traffic stop, and another officer had arrived on the scene. The sergeant did not start writing out a warning to the driver or return the licenses and rental agreement. Instead, the sergeant asked the driver if he could see the candle wax. The driver agreed, opened the car trunk, and showed the sergeant a black plastic bag full of wax. The driver also answered additional questions about her candle business and travel itinerary in response to further questioning by the sergeant. The sergeant asked the driver if there was anything illegal inside the car, and she said no and offered to show him the website for her business. The sergeant then asked for consent to search the sedan, which the driver gave.
Before conducting the search of the sedan, approximately ten minutes into the traffic stop, the sergeant returned to the passenger side of the car and asked McNeil to step out and turn around. McNeil, who still appeared nervous to the sergeant, got out of the car but started to reach down. The sergeant told McNeil not to reach down and then patted him down for weapons. The sergeant later testified that he feared McNeil might have a weapon because of his criminal history, his nervousness, his rummaging through the car, and his reaching down to his pants. The sergeant also testified that he was concerned that a weapon might be present because of his suspicion that the candle business was a cover for drug trafficking.
During the pat-down, the sergeant felt a large bulge at McNeil's lower back. The sergeant handcuffed McNeil, who claimed that the bulge was a bag of marijuana. The sergeant retrieved the bag, which contained heroin. Cocaine was later discovered in McNeil's shoe.
McNeil was indicted on charges of trafficking in illegal drugs (heroin) and possession of cocaine. He moved to suppress the drugs, arguing that the sergeant violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably prolonging the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that the drugs were seized as the result of his unlawful detention. McNeil also argued that the pat-down search violated the Fourth Amendment because the sergeant did not have a reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous.
Following the suppression hearing, the trial court denied the motion, determining that the sergeant's "actions all fit within the reasonable inquiry and investigation authority following a valid traffic stop." The trial court further concluded that even if the sergeant had prolonged the detention beyond the time necessary to complete the traffic stop, the sergeant was authorized to do so because he had a reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity in light of McNeil's nervousness, the fact that the sergeant had experience with candles being used in drug trafficking, and inconsistencies in the driver's and McNeil's stories. The trial court also ruled that the pat-down search was lawful because the sergeant reasonably believed that McNeil might be armed and dangerous.
On appeal, McNeil does not challenge the validity of the initial traffic stop, but he argues that the trial court erred by finding that the sergeant did not impermissibly prolong it. In this regard, McNeil contends that the sergeant unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop beyond the time that was necessary to complete the purpose of the stop without having a reasonable articulable suspicion of other illegal activity.1 We agree.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mathews
...criminal investigation only if the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity. See McNeil v. State , 362 Ga. App. 85, 90, 866 S.E.2d 249 (2021).The state argues that the officer did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop because the traffic stop was ongoing whe......