State v. Hancock
| Decision Date | 11 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A92A0580,A92A0580 |
| Citation | 203 Ga.App. 577,417 S.E.2d 381 |
| Parties | The STATE v. HANCOCK. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Stephen F. Lanier, Dist. Atty., Lisa W. Pettit, Fred R. Simpson, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellant.
Barbara J. Gale, Rome, for appellee.
Defendant was charged in a multi-count indictment with trafficking in cocaine (Count 1), two counts of violating Georgia's Controlled Substances Act (possession of cocaine) (Counts 2 and 3) and three counts of recidivism (Counts 4, 5 and 6). Defendant filed a motion to suppress.
Officer Donnie Canada of the Rome Police Department received information from a confidential informant that defendant "was involved in drug trafficking in the Rome-Floyd County area...." Late on Friday evening April 12, 1991, Officer Canada overheard defendant tell the confidential informant that he was going to "be at a certain place at a certain time in possession of cocaine." More specifically, defendant said he would be at "Silver Creek" early the next morning "in possession of cocaine."
Members of the Rome-Floyd Metro Task Force, Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent Joe McGill and County Police Officer Ray logan staked-out the designated area at the prescribed time and, after about "an hour or two," defendant drove up and stopped the car. About eight law enforcement officers with drawn weapons pointed at defendant surrounded the suspect vehicle. Defendant [. A search of the vehicle revealed no contraband. However, while Officer Canada was searching the car, another officer did a non-consensual "pat-down" search of defendant and discovered two bags of cocaine under defendant's baseball cap.
The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress, finding that the removal of defendant's "baseball cap ... from his head without permission ... was a violation of [defendant's] Constitutional rights and an illegal search, and, therefore, the drugs that were allegedly found in his hat, that evidence would be suppressed." The State appeals. Held:
When coupled with corroboration by the personal observation of a law enforcement officer, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hancock v. State
...and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, the sentence, and the denial of his motion for new trial. In State v. Hancock, 203 Ga.App. 577, 417 S.E.2d 381, the State appealed the trial court's grant of appellant's motion to suppress; we concluded the trial court erred in granting t......
-
Green v. State
...646 (2009). 8 See id. 9 (Citations omitted.) Harvey v. State, 266 Ga. 671, 672, 469 S.E.2d 176 (1996). 10 See State v. Hancock, 203 Ga.App. 577, 578, 417 S.E.2d 381 (1992) (finding probable cause based on new informant's tip because officers personally heard defendant state when and where h......
-
Parker v. State, A95A1676
...officers observed defendant appear at the designated time and place, they had probable cause to arrest him. State v. Hancock, 203 Ga.App. 577, 578, 417 S.E.2d 381 (1992). Any search of defendant was therefore "lawfully conducted pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest." (Citation omitted.) ......
-
Tucker v. State, A03A1463.
...S.E.2d 443 (2001) (heard informant's end of the telephone conversation about when and where the drugs would be); State v. Hancock, 203 Ga.App. 577, 578, 417 S.E.2d 381 (1992) (overheard conversation about when and where the drugs would be). When considered along with the detective's previou......