Mobley v. State
Decision Date | 25 October 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 48381,No. 2,48381,2 |
Citation | 130 Ga.App. 80,202 S.E.2d 465 |
Parties | Kenneth D. MOBLEY v. The STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. S. Hutto & Associates, Randall M. Clark, G. Carroll Palmatary, Brunswick, for appellant.
Glenn Thomas, Dist. Atty., Jesup, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal supported by the requisite review certificate is from two intermediate trial court orders. One of these orders denied the accused's discovery motion seeking to obtain for examination by defendant's own experts the evidentiary substance alleged to be marijuana. The other ruling denied a motion to suppress the evidence which the police officers had taken from defendant's automobile at the time he was halted for a speeding violation.
While on patrol duty at approximately 3 a.m. two Brunswick police officers riding in a marked police car had their attention called to the defendant's automobile as he was not only exceeding the speed limit but apparently riding his brakes. When defendant's vehicle was halted he descended on the driver's side and walked toward the patrol car where the police officer who had been driving met him and asked for his operator's license. The other officer meanwhile proceeded to defendant's parked automobile because of his observing another individual to be a passenger.
There was a conflict in the testimony as to the manner in which the search of the car was made which resulted in seizure of a bag later asserted to be marijuana. The state's version sought to make a case of 'clear view' in that the police officer stated that while looking for weapons by means of shining his flashlight around the interior of the car through its windows he saw the bag on the floor between the front seat and the brakes. As to his consequent search, his words emphasized that 'I wasn't searching the automobile; I'm searching for my own protection.' (T. 14). Since the passenger was a female whose conduct caused no suspicion he was apparently apprehensive of a 'Bonnie and Clyde' situation. The passenger contradicted this testimony, she stating the officer had opened the left front door without permission and while using the flashlight 'felt around.' She also testified she had not seen the bag. No search was made of the glove compartment nor of the locked trunk.
Defendant enumerates the following errors:
1. A search of a vehicle may not be made incident to the arrest of the driver for a mere traffic violation. Rowland v. State, 117 Ga.App. 577, 161 S.E.2d 422. The reason for this limitation is explained in these words in Amador- Gonzalez v. U.S., 391 F.2d 308, 316 (5th Cir. 1968):
2. This limitation does not prevent a reasonable search upon the person detained and the area within such person's immediate presence for the purpose of 'protecting the officer from attack.' Code Ann. § 27-301. Accordingly, the officer was entitled to make a reasonable search of the immediate area for weapons. The officer here testified this to be his intent in looking in the car. His actions would therefore fall within Code Ann. § 27-301 providing they were reasonable.
3. Were the policeman's actions here valid? The answer must depend on the officer having reasonable cause for belief that the contents of the automobile offend against the law. Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790; Vaughn v. State, 126 Ga.App. 252, 255, 190 S.E.2d 609. The state's brief at page 2 argues: But the transcript does not support this assertion as to the facts. We quote all the pertinent portions from the transcript: (T. 12, 13). And later in the transcript, the police officer testified that: (T. 14).
A further reference to the article is on page 16 of the transcript where the police officer said 'The bag was in the front, where the steering wheel-this is the steering wheel right here (gesturing); okay, and the brakes right here, and the bag was sitting, it's between the brakes and the steering wheel.'
The foregoing establishes only that the police officer saw a bag which is not described as having been transparent. It is not described as being 'clear plastic.' Nor does the officer state that his observation of that specific bag or its type or its contents would cause him to have a reasonable belief that it contained contraband. It was only later that a physical examination disclosed the contents to be marijuana.
As to the state's assertion that the contents were seen to be 'green vegetation,' this answer was eliminated from consideration by us as the answer containing these words was eliminated by the trial judge sustaining the defense objection. (T. 13). We are limited to the facts contained in the record on appeal. Hunt v. Denby, 128 Ga.App. 523, 526, 197 S.E.2d 489; Tingle v. Arnold, Cate & Allen, 129 Ga.App. 134, 199 S.E.2d 260. 'Error must appear from the record sent to this court by the clerk of the trial court.' Moye v. State, 127 Ga.App. 338, 341, 193 S.E.2d 562, 564. Furthermore, the term 'green vegetation' would apply to such lawful viands as collard greens, mustard greens, and turnip greens. 1
('The 'plain view' doctrine is applicable)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hatcher v. State, 52645
...leading to an inadvertent open view of evidence, the apparency of which supplies probable cause for a seizure. In Mobley v. State, 130 Ga.App. 80, 202 S.E.2d 465, the nighttime stop of defendant's speeding vehicle was justified, but the seizure from the floorboard of a bag which was found t......
-
Quaid v. State
...accused either as direct or impeaching evidence. (Cits.)' Whitlock v. State, 230 Ga. 700, 703, 198 S.E.2d 865, 867; Mobley v. State, 130 Ga.App. 80, 84, 202 S.E.2d 465. Additionally, it should be noted that appellant was made acquainted with the material contained on the tapes through a pri......
-
Meneghan v. State
...507 P.2d 196; People v. Nieves, 72 Misc.2d 916, 339 N.Y.S.2d 832. Davidson v. State, 125 Ga.App. 502, 188 S.E.2d 124; Mobley v. State, 130 Ga.App. 80, 202 S.E.2d 465; Forehand v. State, 130 Ga.App. 801, 204 S.E.2d 516; and Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306, rel......
-
Allen v. State
...on the floorboard were not immediately identifiable as contraband. Cook v. State, 134 Ga.App. 712, 215 S.E.2d 728; Mobley v. State, 130 Ga.App. 80, 83, 202 S.E.2d 465. However, the coin collection in Cook and the bag in Mobley are clearly distinguishable from the stamp pad in the present ca......