State v. Nelson, S91A0576
| Decision Date | 10 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S91A0576,S91A0576 |
| Citation | 404 S.E.2d 112,261 Ga. 246 |
| Parties | The STATE v. NELSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ralph M. Walke, Dist. Atty., Peter Fred Larsen, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dublin, for State.
Stanley Smith, Dublin, Herbert L. Wells, Perry, for Nelson.
Michael Nelson was indicted for the murder of his wife, Patsy Nelson. The trial court granted Nelson's motions to suppress, and the state appeals.
1. (a) The state contends that the trial court erred in finding that Nelson was arrested, based upon evidence that: Nelson was asked by an unarmed deputy if he would come down to the sheriff's office with him; Nelson asked, "About what?" The deputy answered, "About an incident we just found out about"; Nelson responded, "Well, O.K."; Nelson was not intimidated in any manner, nor given the impression that if he refused he would be forced to go. The deputy had been instructed that he was not to arrest Nelson and, if Nelson did not want to come with him, Nelson was to be left alone. Nelson did not request to leave or to speak with an attorney, and did not ask whether he was required to go. The deputy informed Nelson that his car had no protective screen, and asked him whether he would agree to be handcuffed. Nelson consented, and, thus restrained, was transported to the county jail.
The state maintains that Nelson was not "under arrest."
(b) In Shy v. State, 234 Ga. 816, 820, 218 S.E.2d 599 (1975), we held:
[A]rrest is defined as "the taking, seizing, or detaining of the person of another, either by touching or putting hands on him, or by any act indicating an intention to take such person into custody, and which subjects such person to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest."
In Collier v. State, 244 Ga. 553, 561, 261 S.E.2d 364 (1979), we held:
Under our statute a person is under arrest whenever his liberty to come and go as he pleases is restrained, no matter how slight such restraint may be. [OCGA § 17-4-1.]
Nelson was handcuffed and transported to the county jail in the sheriff's vehicle. He was led handcuffed into the jail, and remained there behind locked doors. He was, of course, "under arrest."
2. (a) The state asserts that the trial court erred in finding that there was no probable cause for Nelson's arrest without a warrant.
(b) The record shows that Nelson gave his consent to the entry of the deputy into his dwelling. 1 The fact that police authorities might have anticipated finding additional evidence does not alter the fact that there was, at the time of the entry, probable cause for Nelson's arrest as a suspected perpetrator of a crime. 2 3. Nelson was advised of his Miranda rights several times after his arrest, and before he made any statement. The arrest being lawful, his statements, as well as all evidence discovered by means of them, were not subject to suppression....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Abbott
...the room or ask for the shackle to be removed so that he could leave. See id. at 26 (2) (b), 764 S.E.2d 833 ; State v. Nelson , 261 Ga. 246, 247 (1) (b), 404 S.E.2d 112 (1991). When an officer finally entered the room, he did not remove the shackle or ever give any indication that Abbott wa......
-
Lindsey v. State
...go as he pleases is restrained, no matter how slight such restraint may be." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Nelson, 261 Ga. 246, 247(1)(b), 404 S.E.2d 112 (1991). But not every taking of a person into custody by a peace officer constitutes an arrest. "Arrest" by definition de......
-
Puckett v. State
...him that they were going inside to get Puckett's shoes, because Puckett was going to the station for a "DUI test."5State v. Nelson, 261 Ga. 246(1), 404 S.E.2d 112 (1991). Accordingly, [t]here was ... evidence adduced at the hearing from which the trial court was further authorized to find t......
-
Castell v. Com.
...person to be arrested. See State v. Cole, 172 Ariz. 590, 838 P.2d 1351, 1352 (App.1992) (interpreting statute); State v. Nelson, 261 Ga. 246, 404 S.E.2d 112, 113 (Ga.1991); Whiting v. State, 755 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tex.Ct.App.1988), rev'd on other grounds, 797 S.W.2d 45, (Tex.1990); State v. S......
-
Criminal Law - Laura D. Hogue and Franklin J. Hogue
...639 S.E.2d at 587. 55. Id. 56. O.C.G.A. Sec. 17-4-1 (2004). 57. Lindsey, 282 Ga. App. at 646, 639 S.E.2d at 587 (quoting State v. Nelson, 261 Ga. 246, 247, 404 S.E.2d 112, 113 (1991)). 58. O.C.G.A. Sec. 17-5-1(a); see also United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 236 (1973). 59. See general......