State v. Tate
Decision Date | 04 January 1993 |
Docket Number | No. A92A1715,A92A1715 |
Parties | The STATE v. TATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Garry T. Moss, Dist. Atty. and Gregory A. Hicks, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.
John R. Hesmer and Jane P. Manning, Marietta, for appellee.
The question for decision is whether the stop of Tate's car by Deputy Sheriff Shields was lawful under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1 Ruling that it was not, the trial court granted Tate's motion to suppress evidence of cocaine seized by Deputy Shields from within Tate's car. The basis for the court's conclusion that the stop was not lawful was its conclusion that, based on the facts as found, a reasonable officer would not have made the traffic stop in the absence of an ulterior motive to interdict drugs. In other words, the court wrote, the stop was "unreasonably pretextual." 2
What follows are the facts as found by the trial court. Since they are supported by evidence in the record, we accept them. Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840, 844(3), 213 S.E.2d 689 (1975). " 'The [trial] court's findings of fact are viewed under the clearly erroneous standard; ...' " United States v. Harris, 928 F.2d 1113 (11th Cir.1991).
To these facts, the trial court applied the test for determining the validity of investigatory stops: "in determining when an investigatory stop is unreasonably pretextual, the proper inquiry ... is not whether the officer could validly have made the stop but whether under the same circumstances a reasonable officer would have made the stop in the absence of the invalid purpose." United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704, 709 (11th Cir.1986). In Smith, the trial court had found that no traffic violation had occurred, and the appellate court concluded that there was not even probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred or was occurring. Id. at 709.
In this case the court found that defendant was issued a warning ticket for the offenses of weaving (OCGA § 40-6-40 et seq.) and no tag light (OCGA § 40-2-41) and found that there was evidence of each. It also found that the officer stopped the defendant "to investigate his erratic driving." This was supported by the evidence, for the officer testified that he activated his blue lights to stop defendant because the slowing down and repeated weaving was an indication of possible DUI (OCGA § 40-6-391). The court did not find that the weaving and manner of driving were caused by the presence or actions of the police vehicle. The officer also testified that it was his regular practice to stop cars exhibiting such activity or defendant's to investigate for DUI, and that when he is sitting observing traffic, he is watching for speeders and erratic drivers who "can cause wrecks." The court noted that the officer subjected defendant to several field sobriety tests.
" '[Th...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lopez
...579, 838 P.2d 1340, 1343 (App.1992); People v. Miranda, 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785, 789 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Tate, 208 Ga.App. 117, 430 S.E.2d 9, 12-13 (1993) (distinguishing Tarwid v. State, 184 Ga.App. 853, 363 S.E.2d 63 (1987)); State v. Myers, 118 Idaho 608, 798 P.2d 453,......
-
Tate v. State
...since the officer had a legitimate purpose in making the stop. The Court of Appeals adopted the state's argument. State v. Tate, 208 Ga.App. 117, 430 S.E.2d 9 (1993). Because we cannot agree that this interpretation reflects the actual findings made by the trial court, we 1. When an appella......
-
Larochelle v. State, A95A2335
...pretextual stops is not whether the officer's primary motivation for making the stop was to interdict drugs. State v. Tate, 208 Ga.App. 117, 120, 430 S.E.2d 9 (1993), rev'd on other grounds, Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53, 440 S.E.2d 646 (1994). Rather, it is measured by " ' " 'an objective asse......
-
Mack v. State, A93A2554
...from stopping her for the traffic violation merely because they suspected her of selling drugs. See generally State v. Tate, 208 Ga.App. 117, 121, 430 S.E.2d 9 (1993). They were authorized to stop Mack and check her driver's license and insurance 2. Citing State v. Diaz, 191 Ga.App. 830, 83......