Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 19 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 65299,65299 |
| Citation | 299 S.E.2d 891,165 Ga.App. 333 |
| Parties | SMITH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William T. Hudson, Jr., Decatur, for appellant.
Stephen E. Franzen, Asst. Dist. Atty., W. Bryant Huff, Dist. Atty., Stephen E. Franzen, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lawrenceville, for appellee.
On appeal from his conviction for armed robbery, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from the automobile which he was driving at the time of his arrest.
The victim testified that he was robbed by two men armed with sawed-off shotguns at about 2:30 a.m. on March 16, 1981, as he was finishing some cleaning work at the Western Steer restaurant located just outside of Snellville on Highway 78 in Gwinnett County. He reported the robbery to the police immediately, describing his assailants as two black males dressed in dark clothing, one of whom was wearing a toboggan hat and the other a black wig.
Gwinnett County police officer John Phillip Davis testified that while on patrol at about 3:00 a.m. on the night in question, he received a radio bulletin to the effect that the Western Steer had been robbed and advising that the perpetrators were two black males armed with sawed-off shotguns and dressed in dark clothing, one of whom was wearing a gray colored toboggan hat. No vehicle description was given. Officer Davis immediately drove to Highway 78 a few miles west of Snellville and, within five minutes of hearing the radio report, observed a car travelling west towards DeKalb County, apparently occupied by two black males. As this car passed in front of his headlights, he observed that the individual on the passenger side was wearing a gray toboggan hat. His suspicions thus aroused, Officer Davis pulled onto the highway and followed the vehicle for several miles while waiting for a backup unit to arrive. He testified that he witnessed no traffic violations nor any irregular driving while following the vehicle and that he was able to observe that there were actually three men in the car rather than two. When the backup unit arrived, the two patrolmen pulled the car over, ordered the three occupants out at gunpoint, and subjected them to a pat-down search for weapons. None were found, nor was any other incriminating evidence discovered at this time.
While the pat-down search was being completed, a third officer, Detective Holloman, arrived on the scene. He testified that he asked the appellant (who was the driver) if he minded if they searched the vehicle and stated that the appellant responded, "No, I haven't done nothing." The officers testified that no threats were made to secure the appellant's consent and that no weapons were pointed at him at this time. The appellant admitted at trial that he did in fact give his consent to Detective Holloman and testified that he was trying to cooperate with the officers. In addition, it appears that the appellant actively gave his assistance to the search by opening the trunk latch with a screwdriver.
The initial search of the vehicle's interior and trunk revealed no incriminating evidence; however, a search of the engine compartment under the hood revealed two sawed-off shotguns and a white money bag lodged between the grill and the radiator. The passenger compartment was then subjected to renewed scrutiny, resulting in the discovery and seizure of a black wig and gray toboggan hat. The three suspects were formally placed under arrest at this time, and the victim's wallet was recovered from the pocket of one of the appellant's companions. Held:
1. A police officer is authorized to make a brief, investigatory detention of an individual for the purpose of maintaining the status quo and obtaining information, provided he can point to specific and articulable facts which, together with rational inferences drawn therefrom, reasonably warrant such an intrusion. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1923, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Brisbane v. State, 233 Ga. 339, 211 S.E.2d 294 (1974); Reese v. State, 145 Ga.App. 453(1), 243 S.E.2d 650 (1978). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lopez v. State
...harassing." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Coley v. State, 177 Ga.App. at 670, 341 S.E.2d 9, supra. See also Smith v. State, 165 Ga.App. 333(1), 299 S.E.2d 891 (1983). In the instant case Trooper Ralston testified on cross-examination that after checking Lopez' driver's license and th......
-
State v. Hall
...had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention of Bin–Wahad. See generally Smith v. State , 165 Ga.App. 333, 334 (1), 299 S.E.2d 891 (1983) ("A police officer is authorized to make a brief, investigatory detention of an individual for the purpose of maintai......
-
Park v. the State.
...their guns had been placed back in their holsters by the time that the consents were requested and obtained. See Smith v. State, 165 Ga.App. 333, 335(2), 299 S.E.2d 891 (1983) (concluding that the defendant had freely and voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle since the officers......
-
Brooks v. State
...in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information. Smith v. State, 165 Ga.App. 333(1) (299 SE2d 891) (1983); Reese v. State, 145 Ga.App. 453(1) (243 SE2d 650) (1978). 'It is clear that in cases where there are some reasonable artic......