State v. Turntime, 67543
| Decision Date | 12 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 67543,67543 |
| Citation | 318 S.E.2d 157,170 Ga.App. 740 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE v. TURNTIME. |
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Benjamin H. Oehlert, III Joseph J. Drolet, Richard E. Hicks, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellant.
John Russell Mayer, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellee was indicted for the offenses of entering an automobile with intent to commit a theft, burglary, theft by receiving and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Appellee's pre-trial motion to suppress was granted and the state appeals.
The relevant facts are essentially undisputed and are as follows: Detective Straka, who is a fourteen-year veteran of the Atlanta Police Department, resides at the Colonial Homes Apartments. He is a night manager of Colonial Homes Apartments and provides security at the complex during his off-hours. At approximately 10:30 on the night in question, Detective Straka, who was not on duty at the time, drove into the apartment complex. Before Detective Straka reached his own apartment building, he observed a male step from a dimly lit area behind another building in the complex. Detective Straka was unable to recognize the individual and, because there had been a rash of car break-ins in the parking lot of the complex, he circled the block and returned for further observation. When Detective Straka completed his circuit, he saw the individual "walking up the sidewalk looking in cars as he went ..." Detective Straka drove past for a closer view and, based upon his personal knowledge, determined that the individual was not a resident of the complex.
Detective Straka drove ahead, parked his automobile and waited for the individual to approach. When the individual did so, Detective Straka introduced himself as a police officer, requested identification and inquired as to the nature of the individual's business in the apartment complex. The individual was then observed to be wearing three coats which, according to Detective Straka's experience, was "conducive to a hold up man's attire." It was also during this encounter that Detective Straka first noticed that the individual was carrying a zippered shaving bag. When Detective Straka observed that the individual was trying to conceal the bag, he inquired about its contents. The individual responded to this inquiry by handing the bag to Detective Straka without comment or protest. Detective Straka began to unzip the bag. At that point, the individual, who was subsequently identified as appellee, fled the scene and unsuccessfully attempted to elude the detective. The zippered bag contained items which led to appellee's multi-count indictment.
Based upon this evidence, the trial court found "that the search and seizure of [appellee] and of [appellee's] satchel was illegal and was carried out by Detective J.S. Straka acting under his authority as an agent of the Atlanta Police Bureau."
1. Bothwell v. State, 250 Ga. 573, 576, 300 S.E.2d 126 (1983). In the instant case, there is considerable doubt that the encounter between Detective Straka and appellee was a "seizure" of the latter. See State v. Reid, 247 Ga. 445, 276 S.E.2d 617 (1981); Bothwell v. State, supra. Sabel v. State, 248 Ga. 10, 11, 282 S.E.2d 61 (1981). However, even assuming that the trial court's finding that a "seizure" of appellee occurred was correct, the further finding that that "seizure" was illegal is clearly erroneous.
State v. Misuraca, 157 Ga.App. 361, 364-365, 276 S.E.2d 679 (1981).
The application of the above stated legal principles to the facts of the instant case clearly demonstrates that Detective Straka had sufficient "articulable suspicions" to authorize a brief investigatory detention of appellee. See generally State v. Carter, 240 Ga. 518, 242 S.E.2d 28 (1978); Jones v. State, 156 Ga.App. 730, 275 S.E.2d 778 (1980). The parking lot of the apartment complex where appellee was observed had been the scene of recent car break-ins. The nighttime activity of a known non-resident in looking into parked cars while walking through such a complex certainly gives rise to an "articulable suspicion" warranting an officer to conduct further limited inquiry concerning possible criminal conduct. See generally Allen v. State, 140 Ga.App. 828, 829(1), 232 S.E.2d 250 (1976). Compare Davis v. State, 158 Ga.App. 271, 279 S.E.2d 720 (1981). (Known nonresidency in the neighborhood, standing alone, does not amount to probable cause to effectuate an immediate arrest.) Yocham v. State, 165 Ga.App. 650, 651, 302 S.E.2d 390 (1983). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State, s. 73911
...See State v. Carter, 240 Ga. 518, 242 S.E.2d 28 (1978); Coley v. State, 177 Ga.App. 669(1), 341 S.E.2d 9 (1986); State v. Turntime, 170 Ga.App. 740(1), 318 S.E.2d 157 (1984); see also Chumbley v. State, 180 Ga.App. 603, 349 S.E.2d 823 (1986). Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court......
-
Culpepper v. State
...suggestive of other criminal activity and sufficiently suspicious to warrant an investigative detention. See State v. Turntime, 170 Ga.App. 740, 742–743(1), 318 S.E.2d 157 (1984) (an officer is constitutionally authorized to investigate the circumstances which provoke a reasonable and found......
-
In re J.T.
...be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Turntime, 170 Ga.App. 740, 742(1), 318 S.E.2d 157 (1984). Here, the officers' stop of J.T. was authorized for more than one reason. First, because of their prior contact w......
-
Minor v. State, 73227
...officer never arrested appellant for the illegal turn, and that the brief investigatory detention allowed by law (see State v. Turntime, 170 Ga.App. 740, 318 S.E.2d 157) did not give probable cause to believe the truck contained contraband and thus the search was based on neither a valid ar......