State v. Louis, 75744

Decision Date12 January 1988
Docket NumberNo. 75744,75744
Citation364 S.E.2d 896,185 Ga.App. 529
PartiesThe STATE v. LOUIS.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

James L. Webb, Sol., Donald C. English, Asst. Sol., for appellant.

Herbert Shafer, Atlanta, for appellee.

BENHAM, Judge.

Appellee was accused of carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a pistol without a license. The State brings this appeal from the grant of appellee's motion to suppress the gun discovered in a search of appellee's person.

At the hearing on the motion, the searching/arresting officer testified that he arrived at a Hapeville motel at 2:00 a.m. in response to the report of a burning car in the motel parking lot. While talking to the desk clerk on duty in this "notorious place" that frequently placed calls for police assistance, the officer noticed appellee, who, according to the officer's testimony, did a double take when he saw the officer, turned, and walked back in the direction from which he had come. When requested by the officer to stop and present identification, appellee did so. The officer then noticed bulges in appellee's jogging suit and conducted a patdown search which revealed a wad of dollar bills and a .22 caliber pistol. Appellant was arrested upon admitting he did not have a license to carry the weapon.

After the testimony of the officer, the trial court orally granted appellee's motion to suppress. Thereafter, appellee's counsel, "out of an abundance of caution," elicited for the record the testimony of appellee and the motel desk clerk. They testified that appellee walked down the motel corridor toward the front door without hesitation upon seeing the officer and that he was stopped by the officer, who questioned him about his presence, commented about his jewelry and his suspected profession, and conducted the patdown search. The desk clerk described the officer as "harassing" appellee. The trial court subsequently entered a written order granting the motion to suppress.

Although the officer's testimony supports a conclusion that the officer was justified in stopping appellee due to appellee's behavior upon seeing the officer (see Watson v. State, 181 Ga.App. 512(3), 352 S.E.2d 828 (1987); Williams v. State, 163 Ga.App. 866(2), 295 S.E.2d 361 (1982); State v. Mallory, 152 Ga.App. 822, 264 S.E.2d 293 (1979)), and conducting a frisk to determine the nature of the bulges (see Edwards v. State, 165 Ga.App. 527, 301 S.E.2d 693 (1983)), the testimony of the desk clerk and appellee concerning app...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Wintker
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 1996
    ...not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Pless v. State, 218 Ga.App. 603(1), 462 S.E.2d 472 (1995); State v. Louis, 185 Ga.App. 529, 530, 364 S.E.2d 896 (1988). Accordingly, the record shows that Davis was stopped for driving 81 mph in a 55 mph zone. The officer discovered Davis......
  • Smith v. State, A98A2280.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 3, 1999
    ...after a suppression hearing must be accepted by the appellate court where it is not clearly erroneous. See State v. Louis, 185 Ga.App. 529, 364 S.E.2d 896 (1988). Considering the circumstances surrounding the stop and the deferential treatment given the trial court's determination on appeal......
  • State v. Hughes
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1988
    ...after a suppression hearing must be accepted by the appellate courts where they are not clearly erroneous, State v. Louis, 185 Ga.App. 529, 364 S.E.2d 896 (1988), the trial court's order in this case should be I am authorized to state that Chief Judge BIRDSONG and Judge SOGNIER join in this......
  • Metheny v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 1990
    ...was formally arrested. Since the trial court's factual determination was not clearly erroneous we must accept it. State v. Louis, 185 Ga.App. 529, 530, 364 S.E.2d 896 (1988). Having determined that Metheny was not in custody until his actual arrest, the remaining issues are addressed only t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT