Rider v. State, A96A0988
Citation | 475 S.E.2d 655,222 Ga.App. 602 |
Decision Date | 12 August 1996 |
Docket Number | No. A96A0988,A96A0988 |
Parties | RIDER v. The STATE. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Thompson, Fox, Chandler, Homans & Hicks, David A. Fox, Gainesville, for appellant.
Albert F. Taylor, Jr., District Attorney, Darrell E. Wilson, Mary E. Moore, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Rider was convicted by a judge of two counts of possessing methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance (OCGA §§ 16-13-26(3)(B); 16-13-30(a)), and one count of driving while methamphetamine was present in his urine (OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(6)). He enumerates as error the denial of his motion to suppress evidence resulting from an illegal search. Burse v. State, 209 Ga.App. 276, 433 S.E.2d 386 (1993).
The day before the arrest, Agent Cochran of the Appalachian Drug Task Force had contact with a confidential informant who stated Rider had a drug problem. The informant expressed concern for Rider's welfare, saying he was in need of assistance. He also said Rider would be using or carrying drugs "anytime" he was on Black Mountain Road, a rural unpaved road three or four miles long. The confidential informant had given Cochran information four previous times leading to two search warrants and five felony arrests. He had never given unreliable information. Although the informant did not state any specific day or time when Rider might be on the road, Cochran went to Black Mountain Road the next day specifically to look for Rider.
Cochran had long known Rider socially and was familiar with the pickup truck he drove. He saw Rider at the residence of Walker, whom Cochran had arrested four months earlier on drug charges. The informant had not told Cochran that Rider would be there. Rider stood outside the residence speaking with Walker for approximately 20 minutes and then left in his pickup truck. Cochran stopped Rider shortly thereafter and said he was suspected of possessing drugs. Rider stated he did not have any drugs and that Cochran could search him and his truck. Cochran did so and discovered methamphetamine in Rider's wallet. 1
The court determined that Cochran had sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Rider based on the informant's information and on his observation of Rider at the residence of a suspected drug dealer on a road where Rider was expected to be. Rider agrees that the proper test was used in measuring the initial stop ( Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 23, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1881, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)) but contends it was erroneously applied. He does not dispute that he consented to the search but argues that his consent was ineffective because it was the product of an illegal detention. VonLinsowe v. State, 213 Ga.App. 619, 622(2), 445 S.E.2d 371 (1994).
" State v. McFarland, 201 Ga.App. 495, 496, 411 S.E.2d 314 (1991). Whether there are reasonable grounds sufficient to justify an investigatory stop is judged in the totality of the circumstances. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); Britton v. State, 220 Ga.App. 120, 122, 469 S.E.2d 272 (1996).
Rider contends the informant's tip furnished only general, unspecific information insufficient to give Cochran reasonable grounds to stop him, and that the tip was the sole basis for the stop. Cochran did not act solely on the tip. During cross-examination, Cochran responded in the negative to the question: "Was there any reason that you had to stop his vehicle other than the information that you had received from the informant the day before?" But this was after Cochran had testified that his knowledge of Walker's background did factor into his decision to stop Rider. The court accepted this statement; the order denying the motion cites that knowledge as one factor justifying the stop. Given the context of each statement, the court did not clearly err in its finding. Burse, supra.
The informant related to Cochran a place (a named, short, rural road) and that the suspect would be carrying, or using, drugs in that place. The informant knew Rider well enough to know these things, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fritzius v. State
...the trial court's findings on disputed facts and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. (Cit.)' [Cit.]" Rider v. State, 222 Ga.App. 602, 475 S.E.2d 655. In determining whether a search or seizure is constitutionally prohibited, "the ultimate test for the validity of the poli......
-
State v. Cauley
...suspicion to initiate an investigative stop); Wilson v. State, 249 Ga.App. 560, 562, 549 S.E.2d 418 (2001); Rider v. State, 222 Ga.App. 602, 604, 475 S.E.2d 655 (1996). 38. See Solis, supra at 497(1)(a), 602 S.E.2d 39. See, e.g., King v. State, 258 Ga.App. 872, 874-875(1), 575 S.E.2d 679 (2......
-
Johnson v. State
...Johnson's van was located by Hambrick to be insignificant under the circumstances of this case. See generally Rider v. State, 222 Ga.App. 602, 603, 475 S.E.2d 655 (1996); Pittman v. State, 208 Ga.App. 211, 218(7), 430 S.E.2d 141 Having established that Hambrick had an articulable suspicion ......
-
State v. Mallard
...and the trial court's findings on disputed facts and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous." (Punctuation omitted.) Rider v. State.1 Where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court's application of the......