State v. Mathis, A16A0605
| Decision Date | 13 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | A16A0605 |
| Citation | 789 S.E.2d 336,338 Ga.App. 86 |
| Parties | The State v. Mathis |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Amy Beth Godfrey, Kimberly Danielle Sewell, Sandra Nadeau Wisenbaker, for Appellant.
T Kevin Mooney, George Albert Stein, Atlanta, for Appellee.
The state accused Justin Mathis of crimes in connection with circumstances pertaining to a traffic stop of his vehicle. Mathis filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop, arguing that the stop was illegal. The state argued that the stop was lawful because Mathis had no light illuminating his license plate—a violation of OCGA § 40–8–23 (d). The trial court conducted a hearing, then granted the motion. The state appeals. For reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for reconsideration.
Pursuant to OCGA § 17–5–30 (b), “the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the state.” Accordingly, “[i]t is the [s]tate's burden to establish the existence of circumstances constituting an exception to the general prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures.”1
“When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court must construe the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to the factual findings and judgment of the trial court,”2 and “ court's findings as to disputed facts and credibility must be adopted unless clearly erroneous.”3 When facts “can be ascertained definitively, for instance, from a video recording[,] ... we give less deference to the fact findings of the trial court.”4 And we owe no deference to the trial court's conclusions of law.5
OCGA § 40–8–23 (d), the provision relied upon by the state, sets forth:
Either a taillight or a separate light shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear. Any taillight or taillights, together with any separate light for illuminating the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the headlights or auxiliary driving lights are lighted.
The sole witness at the motion hearing was the officer who had conducted the stop. On direct examination, he recounted the following. At about 2:30 a.m. on February 12, 2015, he had just completed a (different) traffic stop when he noticed Mathis's vehicle as it passed by because, as the officer testified, “I did not think the car had a tag on it.” The officer got in his patrol car and followed Mathis's vehicle, until it turned into a driveway. The officer drove past the driveway, but pulled into the parking lot of a nearby gas station, where he waited. Seconds later, the officer saw Mathis's vehicle passing by the gas station. At that point, the officer testified, “I could see from the street lights illuminating his car around the gas station, that there was actually a tag on there but there was no working tag light at all on the vehicle.” The prosecutor followed up with:
Next, the prosecutor elicited the officer's testimony that the camera mounted to the dash of his patrol car (“dash cam”) had activated when he pursued Mathis's vehicle and that the dash cam had recorded the traffic stop. That video-recording (with no sound) was presented to the trial court. Thereafter, the prosecutor asked the officer questions about the silent depictions, focusing on that portion during which the officer was pointing to the tag area of Mathis's vehicle.
The prosecutor next asked the officer about the surveillance equipment he had been wearing on his body at the time in question. The officer described An audio-video recording of the pursuit of Mathis's vehicle and the traffic stop had thereby been created by that camera (“body cam”), and it was presented to the court.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked the officer whether, in discussing with Mathis his tag light, he had “reach[ed] up under there and touch[ed] where the tag light is?” The officer answered, “I did.” Defense counsel asked, “Was there a bulb in there?” The officer responded, “I do remember pointing, showing him like up under here is where the light bulb is supposed to be.” Asked then whether he recalled feeling an empty socket, the officer answered, “No, I don't remember an empty socket.”
Also, with the officer on the stand, defense counsel authenticated a photograph, which the officer recognized as “a still picture” from the recording made with his body cam. The still picture, the officer described, depicts “my patrol car ... following that car that I initiated the stop on” as they drove in front of the gas station. More specifically, the officer testified that as of the moment captured by the still picture, Mathis's vehicle was more than 50 feet ahead of his patrol car. The still picture was presented to the trial court.
Before resting, defense counsel asked the officer whether there was any other basis for stopping Mathis's vehicle: “In other words you didn't see him fail to maintain lane or improper turn or anything like that?” The officer answered, “No, sir.”
On redirect examination, the prosecutor asked the officer two questions to evince that Mathis's tag lacked illumination:
After both sides presented respective closing argument, the trial judge expressed his personal opinion about the statutory provision relied upon by the state before ultimately announcing, “I'll grant the motion,” and further stating that “[i]n this case it hasn't been shown to me that [the tag light] was out because based on the picture that the Defendant entered.” Subsequently, in the “Order on Defendant's Motion to Suppress,” the trial court set forth:
Upon consideration of all of the testimony, the exhibits, and any argument by counsel, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED [w]ith the following findings of fact: State did not show that the officer had a[n] articulable suspicion that the Defendant had violated the rules of the road. All evidence suppressed.
1. The state attacks the grant of Mathis's motion to suppress as contrary to the evidence, maintaining that “[the officer] conducted the traffic stop because of the equipment violation, specifically no tag light, which is a violation of state law.”
The state summarizes the case it presented to the trial court as follows. Citing the officer's testimony, the state claims it showed:
[The officer] parked his vehicle in the gas station parking lot, and, seconds later, observed [Mathis] pass the gas station. With the street lamps illuminating [Mathis's] vehicle, [the officer] determined that the vehicle did have a tag; however, it did not have a working tag light. [The officer] observed no light illuminating the tag and determined either the vehicle's tag light was burned out or the vehicle lacked a tag light. [The officer] confirmed that due to the lack of tag light, the tag was not legible from a distance of fifty feet. ... After being shown that the tag light was out, [Mathis] acknowledged that the tag light was out.6
The state characterizes the officer's testimony as “uncontradicted” and further “bolstered” by all three exhibits introduced at the hearing. Citing certain portions of the dash cam and body cam recordings, the state asserts that “it was clear there was no white light illuminating the tag.” Regarding the still picture introduced by the defense, the state claims that “[it] does not show that the tag light was working.” According to the state, “[n]o evidence presented indicates that the tag light was ever illuminated during the course of the Appellee driving or the traffic stop.”
The trial court was not required to accept the state's position. “[W]hen a motion to suppress is heard by the trial judge, that judge sits as the trier of facts.”7 8 “Factors such as demeanor, contradictory or inconsistent statements and evidence that an officer had ‘ulterior motives' can all lead a finder of fact to disregard testimony by an officer.”9 And as explained above, deference to the fact-finding prerogative of the trial court requires an appellate court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings and decision of the trial court.10
Notably, in the instant case, when the prosecutor reminded the trial judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. State, A17A0115
...trial court failed to exercise its discretion as required under the statute, the appealed order cannot stand. State v. Mathis , 338 Ga. App. 86, 95 (2), 789 S.E.2d 336 (2016) ; State v. Able , 321 Ga. App. 632, 635-636, 742 S.E.2d 149 (2013) ; Wilcox v. State , 257 Ga. App. 519, 520-521, 57......
- Parfenuk v. State
-
Jackson v. United States
...the registration plate is not clearly visible and that it is not visible from a distance of fifty feet, relying on State v. Mathis, 338 Ga. App. 86, 789 S.E.2d 336 (2016), and Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1272 (11th Cir. 2004). Opening Br. at 19, Jackson, 713 F. App'x 963, 2017 WL 225......
-
State v. Mathews
...of the officer to the extent that the officer's testimony is inconsistent with the court's decision." State v. Mathis , 338 Ga. App. 86, 91 (1), 789 S.E.2d 336 (2016).The officer also testified at the hearing on Mathews’ motion about his experience detecting the odor of marijuana. But in he......