Shirley v. City of College Park
| Decision Date | 29 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 38323,38323,2 |
| Citation | 115 S.E.2d 469,102 Ga.App. 10 |
| Parties | R. C. SHIRLEY v. CITY OF COLLEGE PARK |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Preston L. Holland, Hapeville, for plaintiff in error.
Henry G. Crawford, College Park, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Since the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a State offense, the judge of the Recorder's Court of the City of College Park did not err in binding the defendant over to the Criminal Court of Fulton County for this offense.
2. City police officers observing the defendant driving within the City of College Park, the automobile weaving from one side to the other of the highway in such a manner as to be a hazard to other traffic, were justified in following the defendant, signalling him to stop, and, when he refused to stop, in pursuing, stopping, and arresting him, without first going to the proper authorities and obtaining a warrant for his arrest. See Gordy v. State, 93 Ga.App. 743, 748, 92 S.E.2d 737. This is true although the city police officers did not succeed in apprehending the defendant within the city limits of the municipality, and, when he stopped, the automobile was actually located in a small piece of unincorporated territory completely surrounded by the municipality.
3. The defendant was arrested, tried, and convicted in the recorders's court for a violation of a city ordinance forbidding the use of profanity within the limits of the municipality. The acts of using profanity were committed after the defendant had been returned to a point within the city limits, and seem to have been triggered by the defendant's desire to protest the circumstances of his arrest for drunk driving. While officers cannot illegally arrest a person for a given offense and then make out that offense by acts which the defendant commits in protesting the illegal arrest, yet a defendant, even though under arrest, may be guilty of a separate and distinct offense, and he cannot defend merely by showing he was under a lawful arrest at the time of the second offense. See Finch v. State, 101 Ga.App. 526, 114 S.E.2d 378. Nor is this ruling controlled by Trowbridge v. Dominy, 92 Ga.App. 177, 88 S.E.2d 161, the holding in that case being that a defendant may not be bound over to a State court on a State offense and at the same time convicted in a municipal court for a violation of a city ordinance which is part and parcel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cantrell v. Mayor and Council of Mt. Airy, s. 21901
...to arrest: Reed v. State, 195 Ga. 842, 843(4), 25 S.E.2d 692; Earl v. State, 124 Ga. 28, 29(2), 52 S.E. 78; Shirley v. City of College Park, 102 Ga.App. 10(2), 115 S.E.2d 469. See as to the failure to allege a property right: Hunter v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. 179(1), 91 S.E.2d 338. While i......
-
Poss v. State
...limits in order to effectuate an arrest. Wooten v. State, 135 Ga.App. 97, 98, 217 S.E.2d 350 (1975); Shirley v. City of College Park, 102 Ga.App. 10(2), 115 S.E.2d 469 (1960). See also Martasin v. State, 155 Ga.App. 396, 397(2), 271 S.E.2d 2 (1980). Askew v. State, 145 Ga.App. 164(1), 243 S......
- State ex rel. Harding v. Boles
-
Rick v. State
...v. Camp, 193 Ga. 320(5), 18 S.E.2d 622, defining the powers and duties of sheriffs and their deputies. Cf. Shirley v. City of College Park, 102 Ga.App. 10(2), 115 S.E.2d 469, where a warrantless arrest which was otherwise authorized under § 27-207 was not rendered illegal merely because the......