State v. Creel
| Decision Date | 29 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53715,No. 2,53715,2 |
| Citation | 235 S.E.2d 628,142 Ga.App. 158 |
| Parties | The STATE v. K. L. CREEL |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Charles R. Hadaway, Asst. Sol., Atlanta, for appellant.
J. Roger Thompson, Atlanta, for appellee.
The defendant was charged with misdemeanor theft. Police officers were called by a reliable witness who saw the defendant and a companion illegally removing coins from parking meters. The police arrested the defendant and found keys to parking meters, but no large quantity of coins on his person. A search of the defendant's car, which was legally parked a half block away, uncovered a large quantity of coins in a bag under the driver's seat. A motion to suppress the evidence found in the automobile was granted. The state appeals from the order suppressing the coins.
1. The state contends that the evidence was legally seized in a search incident to an arrest. This court has held that a search may be made of an automobile in the defendant's possession at the scene of the arrest. Glover v. State, 139 Ga.App. 162(2), 227 S.E.2d 921 (1976). In Glover and the cases cited therein, the defendant was arrested immediately after having alighted from his car and in the immediate presence of the vehicle. The search, in the case at bar, of a car legally parked one-half block from the scene of the arrest cannot be found to be incident to a valid arrest. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455-457, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), wherein the search of a car located in the driveway of the home in which the defendant was arrested was held invalid.
2. The state claims that the search was legal because it was a reasonable inventory taken in conjunction with the impoundment of the defendant's automobile, which was parked in a high crime area with the windows down and the keys inside. However, the record does not support this contention, because there is no evidence that the police entered the defendant's automobile in order to prepare for its impoundment. The vehicle was legally parked and was not creating a traffic hazard. And, there is evidence from which the trial judge could have found that the police were acting not out of a desire to protect the car, but in the hopes of finding the fruits of the defendant's suspected crime. "In these circumstances the trial court was authorized, though not required, to find from the totality of the circumstances that the impounding of (the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goff
...point have held that if the car is never taken into police custody then there is no basis for an inventory search. State v. Creel, 142 Ga.App. 158, 235 S.E.2d 628 (1977); State v. LaRue, 368 So.2d 1048 (La.1979); Manalansan v. State, 45 Md.App. 667, 415 A.2d 308 (1980); State v. Gluck, 83 W......
-
Hardwick v. State
...in the absence of a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. There was no such exception here. See Love, supra; State v. Creel, 142 Ga.App. 158(1), 235 S.E.2d 628. "There being no exigent circumstances, the law enforcement officers were not authorized to search the trunk without a w......
-
State v. Thomason
...automobile was "properly parked" in an urban area where "there were other cars parked on that side of the road." See State v. Creel, 142 Ga.App. 158, 235 S.E.2d 628 (1977). Compare Highland v. State, 144 Ga.App. 594, 241 S.E.2d 477 (1978). While it is true that these factors, standing alone......
-
Sams v. State
...398 S.E.2d 778 (officers do not have general authority to detain anyone who exhibits merely furtive behavior).4 See State v. Creel, 142 Ga.App. 158, 235 S.E.2d 628 (1977) (search of car parked one half block from site of valid arrest not justified as inventory search where car was legally p......