State v. Nichols, 62719
| Decision Date | 20 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62719,62719 |
| Citation | 287 S.E.2d 53,160 Ga.App. 386 |
| Parties | The STATE v. NICHOLS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rafe Banks III, Dist. Atty., for appellant.
Glyndon Pruitt, Walt M. Britt, Buford, for appellee.
Dwayne Nichols is charged with the theft of a roto-tiller. The state appeals the grant of the defendant's motion to suppress the admission of the roto-tiller in evidence.
The owner testified that he inquired of persons living nearby whether they knew anything about a roto-tiller missing from his land. He learned that the defendant had expressed a desire for the roto-tiller and also that the defendant had been on his property two days before the roto-tiller was discovered missing. An officer from the sheriff's department, accompanied by the owner, proceeded to the defendant's mobile home to talk to him. The defendant was not there; however, the owner was able to identify a roto-tiller located on the defendant's property near the trailer as his own. The roto-tiller was seized and taken to the sheriff's office. Held:
The state concedes that the roto-tiller was within the curtilage of the defendant's home. "Prima facie, a search made within the curtilage of the owner without a warrant is unconstitutional and void. 'Curtilage' includes the yards and grounds of a particular address, its gardens, barns, buildings, etc." Norman v. State, 134 Ga.App. 767, 768, 216 S.E.2d 644 (1975). Generally, "[w]arrantless searches are improper absent exigent circumstances, at least when the investigating officers have intruded upon the curtilage for the purpose of conducting a search for criminal activity." United States v. Williams, 581 F.2d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1978).
From the record it appears that the officer went to the door of the trailer on the same route as would any guest, deliveryman, postal employee, or other caller. The vantage point from which the roto-tiller was visible was about half way between the door of the trailer and the roadside where the officer parked his car. This observation breached no right of privacy of the defendant. From this same vantage point, the owner was able to identify his missing property because of certain unusual characteristics. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State, A07A0151.
...standing in the driveway and on the public road, a vantage point that "breached no right of privacy of [Morgan]." State v. Nichols, 160 Ga.App. 386, 287 S.E.2d 53 (1981). See Sirmans v. State, 244 Ga.App. 252, 254-255(2)(b), 534 S.E.2d 862 (2000) (officer's observations of mistreated animal......
-
Galloway v. State
...State v. Brown, 158 Ga.App. 312, 315, 279 S.E.2d 755 (1981); State v. Brooks, 160 Ga.App. 381, 287 S.E.2d 95 (1981); State v. Nichols, 160 Ga.App. 386, 287 S.E.2d 53 (1981). "The essential purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to shield the citizen from unwarranted intrusions by the government......
-
Morse v. State
...25. See Oliver, supra at 178-181, 104 S.Ct. 1735; see also Dunn, supra at 303-304, 107 S.Ct. 1134. 26. See State v. Nichols, 160 Ga.App. 386, 287 S.E.2d 53 (1981). 27. (Punctuation omitted.) See id. 28. See Dunn, supra at 305, 107 S.Ct. 1134. 29. No evidence was presented at trial. Instead,......
-
Pickens v. State
...went to the motel room door "on the same route as would any guest, deliveryman, postal employee, or other caller." State v. Nichols, 160 Ga.App. 386, 287 S.E.2d 53 (1981). The officer's inquiry as to Pickens' identity and his asking Pickens to step outside for safety reasons were permissibl......