Miller v. State

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: POPE; BIRDSONG
• Citation: Miller v. State, 357 S.E.2d 876, 183 Ga.App. 55 (Ga. App. 1987)
• Decision Date: 22 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. 74203,74203
• Parties: MILLER v. The STATE.

Page 876

357 S.E.2d 876

183 Ga.App. 55

MILLER v. The STATE.

No. 74203.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 22, 1987.

Robert L. Ferguson, Jonesboro, for appellant.

Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Clifford A. Sticher, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

POPE, Judge.

On February 6, 1986, appellant was observed by Agent R.F. Jordan, a GBI agent assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration Airport Task Force at Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport, when he exited from a flight from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Based on the drug courier profile, Jordan's attention was attracted to appellant due to his disheveled appearance and because he was wearing a heavy coat in the warm airport, was carrying only a small tote bag and had no checked baggage, avoided making eye contact with other people although he spoke to the airline agent and was continually looking around in a nervous manner. When appellant went to another gate to await his connecting flight, Jordan ascertained that appellant had a one-way cash ticket purchased the night before under the name Marvin Doe, and that the listed reservation call-back number did not receive incoming telephone calls. Jordan approached appellant, identified himself as a police officer and asked to talk to him. When appellant agreed Jordan asked to see his airline ticket, which appellant handed him, and verified the reservation information previously obtained. Appellant identified himself as Marvin Doe when asked his name, but had no identification with him to show that this was in fact his name.

Jordan then told appellant that he and another officer who was seated behind appellant were looking for drugs coming through the airport and would appreciate his cooperation by allowing them to search his bag and person. Appellant seemed very nervous, but agreed and opted to go to a private room for the search. Once there his consent to search rights were read to him and he stated upon being asked that he understood them and to "go ahead and search." Appellant's bag was searched but no contraband was found. However, during a pat down search a package was found taped to his back containing a white powdery substance. When asked what was in the package, appellant first responded, "It's coke," but then said it was "his coat." The officers confiscated the package, which was subsequently tested and found to contain 223 grams of cocaine and another substance with a purity of 87% cocaine; appellant was arrested, tried and convicted of trafficking in cocaine and giving...