State v. Handspike
| Decision Date | 20 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32509,32509 |
| Citation | 240 S.E.2d 1,240 Ga. 176 |
| Parties | The STATE v. Wendzell Delano HANDSPIKE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Charles Hadaway, Asst. Sol. Gen., Atlanta, for appellant.
Isaacs, Comolli & Polonsky, John M. Comolli, Atlanta, for appellee.
The question in this certiorari appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred as a matter of law in determining that the search and seizure of less than an ounce of marijuana on the defendant's person was not a lawful search incident to an arrest. Under the facts recited in the Court of Appeals' opinion, the policeman had probable cause to arrest Handspike when he recognized the two girls in the car as juveniles, saw the wine and cups, and was told by the defendant that he had given the girls some wine. Code Ann. § 58-612. We hold that the officer had observed a crime being committed in his presence and had probable cause to arrest the defendant. He conducted his search incident to that arrest, and the marijuana was properly seized. Code Ann. § 27-207; Mitchell v. State, 136 Ga.App. 658, 222 S.E.2d 160 (1975). We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Handspike, 142 Ga.App. 104, 235 S.E.2d 568 (1977).
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except HALL and HILL, JJ., who dissent.
MARSHALL, J., disqualified.
I dissent to the grant of certiorari and the reversal of the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
This is a routine search and seizure case and for this reason I find no reason for the grant of certiorari. If I had been a member of the Court of Appeals in this case, I would have voted with the dissenting Judges of that court to reverse the ruling of the trial judge. However, as a member of the Supreme Court, I find no matter of great public concern or gravity and importance. Rule 36(j) Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, effective December 1, 1975. See my dissenting opinion in Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Jones, 236 Ga. 448 at 451, 224 S.E.2d 25 (1976).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radowick v. State
...to coerce a suspect into consenting to a search. State v. Handspike, 142 Ga.App. 104, 107, 235 S.E.2d 568, rev'd. other grounds, 240 Ga. 176, 240 S.E.2d 1; Shy v. State, 234 Ga. 816, 821-822, 218 S.E.2d 599. Thus, it is evident that after the "brief stop" authorized by Terry, absent additio......
-
Curry v. State
...incident to arrest, the police discovered money and two cartridges. Under the holding of the Georgia Supreme Court in State v. Handspike, 240 Ga. 176, 240 S.E.2d 1 (1977), the search incident to arrest did not exceed its permissible scope. See also U. S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. ......
-
Kervin v. State
...the officers probable cause to believe that appellant intended to disseminate the items offered for sale in the store. State v. Handspike, 240 Ga. 176, 240 S.E.2d 1 (1977); King v. State, 161 Ga.App. 382, 288 S.E.2d 644 (1982). Appellant was then placed under arrest, and one of the officers......
-
Chambers v. State
...plain view were seized. In this case the seizure (as opposed to a search) is justified as being incident to the arrest (State v. Handspike, 240 Ga. 176, 240 S.E.2d 1; State v. Mathis, 143 Ga.App. 121, 122, 237 S.E.2d 643); the contraband was in plain view and properly not to be avoided or i......