State v. Billoups, A89A0921
| Decision Date | 06 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A0921,A89A0921 |
| Citation | 191 Ga.App. 834,383 S.E.2d 198 |
| Parties | The STATE v. BILLOUPS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., and Bradfield M. Shealy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.
William R. Folsom, Valdosta, for appellee.
The state appeals the grant of the appellee's motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his person.
The appellee was arrested by Officer Hunter of the Valdosta Police Department at approximately 2:30 a.m., while the latter was on routine patrol in the Hudson-Docket section of the city, a neighborhood which the officer characterized as a "highly drug populated area." Officer Hunter testified that as his patrol car rounded a corner, he observed the appellee standing on the sidewalk "conversing" with another male subject. He stated that when the two men looked up and saw the patrol car, they "broke and ran," whereupon he exited the patrol car, chased after the appellee on foot, and ultimately apprehended him. He then conducted a "patdown search" of the appellee's person to "see if he had a weapon on him." Upon doing so, he felt an object in the appellee's pocket which seemed to be a film cannister. Stating that in his experience such cannisters were used to conceal razor blades, he pulled it out of the appellee's pocket and opened it. It proved to contain "crack" cocaine, resulting in the appellee's indictment for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Held:
Cook v. State, 136 Ga.App. 908, 909(1), 222 S.E.2d 656 (1975). See also Banks v. State, 187 Ga.App. 280, 282, 370 S.E.2d 38 (1988); Moore v. State, 155 Ga.App. 721(1), 272 S.E.2d 575 (1980); Green v. State, 127 Ga.App. 713, 715, 194 S.E.2d 678 (1972). We conclude that in the context of the time of day and the location, the appellee's flight from the officer provided probable cause for a belief that he was in possession of unlawful contraband, with the result that the search was authorized as a search incident to a valid arrest. We accordingly hold that the trial court erred in granting the appellee's motion to suppress.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polke v. State, A91A1677
...that drugs were being sold in the Liberty Street area because "sale" requires a seller and a buyer. Compare State v. Billoups, 191 Ga.App. 834, 383 S.E.2d 198 (1989) (wherein the officers personally observed a probable on-going drug deal between two individuals); State v. Grimes, 195 Ga.App......
-
State v. Flores
...427, 398 S.E.2d 778 (1990), much less an arrest. And this is not a situation where the men were fleeing. Compare State v. Billoups, 191 Ga.App. 834, 835, 383 S.E.2d 198 (1989). In these circumstances, I believe that the trial court did not err by granting the motions to suppress, and, there......
-
Ransom v. State
...State v. Webb, 193 Ga.App. 2, 4(1), 386 S.E.2d 891 (1989); Scott v. State, 193 Ga.App. 74, 387 S.E.2d 31 (1989); State v. Billoups, 191 Ga.App. 834, 383 S.E.2d 198 (1989). 4. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 ...
-
State v. Brown, A93A2467
...We are not authorized to substitute our findings of fact for those of the trial judge. This case is distinguished from State v. Billoups, 191 Ga.App. 834, 383 S.E.2d 198, where there was no police entry into a dwelling. Construed in favor of the trial court's findings, the evidence shows th......