State v. Grant

• Decision Date: 19 May 1987
• Docket Number: Nos. 44183,44184,s. 44183
• Citation: 257 Ga. 123,355 S.E.2d 646
• Parties: STATE v. GRANT. GRANT v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 646

355 S.E.2d 646

257 Ga. 123

STATE v. GRANT.

GRANT v. STATE.

Nos. 44183, 44184.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 19, 1987.

Reconsideration Denied in No. 44183 June 3, 1987.

Willis B. Sparks III, Dist. Atty., Macon, for the State.

R. Robider Markwalter, Raymond M. Kelley, Macon, for George Grant.

CLARKE, Presiding Justice.

This is a murder case in which the state is seeking the death penalty. The trial court granted a pretrial motion to suppress certain evidence; this order was certified for immediate review and we granted the state's application to appeal. The trial court held that the taking of palm prints and a statement were obtained in violation of Grant's Fourth Amendment rights under Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). It is our view that the officer taking Grant to the station for questioning had probable cause for arrest without a warrant pursuant to our holding in Durden v. State, 250 Ga. 325, 297 S.E.2d 237 (1982), and therefore, we reverse the suppression of the evidence. Grant has filed a cross appeal from an order denying investigative funds; we find no error in the denial of the expenses and affirm.

Grant has been indicted in Bibb County for the offenses of murder, armed robbery, burglary, and arson. On May 2, 1986, at around 11:00 p.m. the fire department arrived at the residence of the victim, Savannah Cook, to respond to a fire in her side of a duplex. The glass in the rear door had been broken, indicating a forced entry. The victim, a 74 year old woman was found in the bedroom with multiple stab wounds in her body. In the room with the body investigators found a knife with the handle burned off and an afro comb. It appeared that the fire had been started in that room and that a second fire had been set near the rear door.

Detective Robert Hernandez of the Macon police department was the main investigating officer and he arrived on the scene in the early morning hours of May 3. After examining the scene he viewed the body at the funeral home. Other investigating officers were told by neighbors of Mrs. Cook that they had seen George Grant in the area around 8:00 p.m. on May 2 and that he had an afro comb and a knife in his possession at that time. When shown the comb and knife at the scene a neighbor said they were of the type in Grant's possession. A fifteen year old gave a statement at around 1:30 a.m. on May 3 to the police that she had seen Grant enter a vacant apartment in the immediate vicinity. She then watched and saw him looking into the occupied residence adjoining Mrs. Cook's; according to her statement Grant then moved to the rear of Mrs. Cook's duplex and she heard the sound of breaking glass. Investigators also were given a piece of paper with the name George Grant and Grant's address. At approximately 2:00 am detective Hernandez ordered surveillance on Grant's house.

Grant arrived at his home around 10:00 a.m. on May 3 and Hernandez was notified and drove to the house. At this time Hernandez knew that a palm print had been obtained from the rear of the victim's home. Grant was outside the house and Hernandez arrived and asked him to come to the city hall for questioning about a break-in, naming the vicinity where the victim lived, but not giving Grant any details. He agreed to accompany the officers and rode in the back of the police car to headquarters. Hernandez began reading Miranda rights when they arrived at the office and Grant stopped him saying he was familiar with his rights and was willing to talk. During the interview, in which Grant denied being in the area, Grant was asked to give finger and palm prints. Hernandez stated that Grant agreed saying the police had them anyway; Hernandez believed Grant was referring to his criminal record files. After the prints were taken Grant was driven to his job by officers.

Another officer working on the case had located the woman with whom Grant said he had spent the night; from her the officer recovered a shirt which Grant had left at her home and which appeared to be blood stained. Hernandez learned immediately that the print from the victim's house matched Grant's and a warrant for his arrest was obtained around noon on May 3. Grant was subsequently placed under arrest and gave a confession after signing a waiver of rights form. This confession was taped at around 2:00 p.m.

1. The trial court held that there was no probable cause to arrest Grant when he was first taken in at 10:30 a.m.; he found that although the police did not use force, Grant was in fact seized for Fourth Amendment purposes under Dunaway, supra, and evidence obtained during such investigatory detention is subject to the exclusionary rule when probable cause to arrest does not exist. He therefore ordered suppressed the matching palm print, a statement made immediately prior to arrest and the confession, based upon the causal connection between the illegal detention and this evidence. See Dunaway, supra. Other rulings on admissability made by the trial court are not at issue in this appeal.

We agree with the ruling of the trial court that Grant was in fact seized when he first went to the police station and that following Dunaway could require suppression of the evidence if there were no probable cause to arrest. As an appellate court we will accept a trial...