State v. Sawyer
| Decision Date | 09 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. A08A0638.,A08A0638. |
| Citation | 665 S.E.2d 2,291 Ga. App. 462 |
| Parties | The STATE v. SAWYER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Kermit N. McManus, District Attorney, Barry S. Minter, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.
Anna P. Johnson, for appellee.
The State appeals from the trial court's order granting Melea Careen Sawyer's1 motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine found by police during a burglary investigation. The State contends that the trial court erred in granting Sawyer's motion upon finding her consent to search invalid based upon an impermissibly expanded investigative stop. Discerning error, we reverse.
The trial court based its grant of Sawyer's motion to suppress upon a conclusion of law that the search was invalid because the scope thereof was impermissibly expanded. We owe no deference to such a ruling and review the same de novo.2 Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319, 320(1), 443 S.E.2d 474 (1994); see also State v. McBride, 261 Ga. 60, 66, 401 S.E.2d 484 (1991) (Hunt, J., concurring specially).
So viewed, the evidence shows that at 2:26 a.m., on March 14, 2007, an officer of the Chatsworth Police Department was on routine patrol when he drove past a retail shop known as Rose's Resale. Observing that the front door of the store was open, that lights were on, and that people were inside moving things around, he initiated an investigation believing a possible burglary was in progress.
After entering the store, the officer found Sawyer and two others inside and asked that they produce some form of identification. At approximately 2:32 a.m., he radioed his dispatcher and requested a record check as to the first of Sawyer's companions, placing him under arrest when his record revealed a warrant for his arrest. The records check as to Sawyer's second companion showed no outstanding arrest warrant but failed to corroborate his claim that he was renting the store. Realizing, however, that such individual had previously been arrested for drug offenses, the officer asked for, and received, his consent to a search of his pockets for drugs. Finding nothing therein, the officer requested that Sawyer's record be checked, doing so at 2:41 a.m. While the record check was in progress, the officer asked Sawyer for consent to a search of her pockets. Sawyer's testimony to the contrary notwithstanding, the officer testified that she had been free to leave the scene throughout his investigation; that she gave her consent; and that as she pulled her pockets from her pants, he observed and seized the methamphetamine suppressed by the trial court. Sawyer's arrest followed at 2:42 a.m.
Given the foregoing, the trial court did not err in making the factual determination that a second-tier encounter had occurred.3 See McCorvey Dev. v. D.G. Jenkins Dev. Corp., 260 Ga.App. 276, 277, 581 S.E.2d 308 (2003) (). However, the record shows that the trial court's grant of the motion to suppress was not based upon this factual determination. Rather, the trial court concluded, as a matter of law, that Sawyer's consent to search was invalid because the officer impermissibly expanded his investigative stop for lack of evidence of other criminal activity. That the officer asked for Sawyer's consent to search before the record check of her had been completed, the purpose of the officer's investigative stop had not been fulfilled at the time the officer asked his question. Consequently, the trial court's legal conclusion that the officer's request to search Sawyer for drugs impermissibly expanded the scope of his investigative stop was error. Questioning unrelated to the purpose of an initial stop is proper so long as it does not prolong the duration of the same. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. State
...785, 788, 723 S.E.2d 924 (2012). However, the determination remains a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Sawyer , 291 Ga. App. 462, 462-463, 665 S.E.2d 2 (2008).Modern cell phones—or "smart phones"—present new and complicated issues for law enforcement seeking to conduct a sea......
-
Hayes v. State
... ... 17. 292 Ga.App. 43(2), 663 S.E.2d 396 (2008) ... 18. Supra ... 19. Supra at 738(1), 632 S.E.2d 645. See also State v. Sawyer, 291 Ga.App. 462, 665 S.E.2d 2 (2008) (recognizing that Salmeron overruled Daniel) ... 20. 276 Ga.App. 735, 737(1), 624 S.E.2d 212 (2005) ... 21. Supra at 867, 547 S.E.2d 679 ... 22. Cuaresma, supra ... 23. Salmeron, supra at 739, 632 S.E.2d 645 (Sears, C.J., dissenting). See also State v ... ...
-
Dade v. State
...find as a matter of law that Dumas's consent to search the van resulted from an unlawful prolonged detention. See State v. Sawyer, 291 Ga.App. 462, 665 S.E.2d 2 (2008) (finding officer investigating possible burglary did not unlawfully expand the scope and duration of his investigation by a......
-
Wilson v. State
... ... Salmeron v. State, 280 Ga. at 738-739, 632 S.E.2d 645; Trujillo v. State, 286 Ga.App. at 441(2)(b), 649 S.E.2d 573. See also State v. Sawyer, 291 Ga.App. 462, 464, 665 S.E.2d 2 (2008) ... [293 Ga. App. 139] ... Judgment affirmed ... SMITH, P.J., and MIKELL, J., concur ... --------------- ... 1. The possession counts were merged with the trafficking counts for sentencing ... 2. The United States ... ...