The State v. Crumpton

Decision Date03 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. A09A2387.,A09A2387.
Citation692 S.E.2d 39,302 Ga.App. 602
PartiesThe STATEv.CRUMPTON.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

302 Ga.App. 602
692 S.E.2d 39

The STATE
v.
CRUMPTON.

No. A09A2387.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 3, 2010.


692 S.E.2d 39
J. David Miller, District Attorney, Cynthia D. Hendrix, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.
692 S.E.2d 40
Samantha J. Magis, for appellee.

ADAMS, Judge.

Darius Otto Crumpton was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of an illegal substance within 1,000 feet of a housing project. The trial court granted Crumpton's motion to suppress the contraband, and the State appeals.

On appeal from a ruling on a motion to suppress, we must construe the evidence most favorably to affirming the trial court's factual findings and judgment. We accept the trial court's factual and credibility determinations unless they are clearly erroneous, and the factual findings will be upheld if they are supported by any evidence. The trial court's application of the law to undisputed facts, however, is subject to a de novo standard of review. (Citations omitted.) Peterson v. State, 294 Ga.App. 128, 129(1), 668 S.E.2d 544 (2008).

State v. Hogans, 301 Ga.App. 261, 687 S.E.2d 230 (2009).

So viewed, the evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing, including the video recording of the stop, shows the following: The arresting officer, Sergeant Frank Swanson, testified that at about 1:00 a.m. on October 31, 2008, he was on patrol with his partner when he saw Crumpton driving alone. Swanson recognized Crumpton because he had looked for him on outstanding warrants in the past; Swanson also knew Crumpton had been incarcerated for burglary after being convicted of that crime in another county where Swanson had previously been employed. And several months previous to the incident here, Swanson had assisted in a drug investigation involving Crumpton, but that investigation was concluded without Crumpton being arrested. Despite Swanson's knowledge of Crumpton's criminal history, however, he could not recall ever personally arresting Crumpton and the only knowledge he had of Crumpton allegedly being involved with illegal drugs arose out of the earlier investigation that concluded without an arrest.

Swanson testified that when he saw Crumpton on the night of the incident here, the first thing that caught his attention was that Crumpton seemed to be turning away so that the occupants of the patrol car could not see his face. He then noticed Crumpton move across two lanes of traffic and turn into the parking lot of an assisted living home. After Crumpton slowly circled the parking lot, Swanson, who had positioned his vehicle so he could watch Crumpton, got behind Crumpton as he drove back out onto the street. Swanson noticed that half of Crumpton's rear taillight was out, so he activated his lights and pulled Crumpton over.1

As Swanson approached Crumpton's car, he observed that Crumpton was leaned “way” back in his seat with his legs fully extended and locked out, and that he was zipping up his denim shorts. He also noticed that when Crumpton sat back down in his seat, his right foot was shaking uncontrollably. Swanson testified that his first thought after observing these actions was that Crumpton was trying to conceal contraband.

Swanson wrote Crumpton a warning ticket for the taillight violation and then questioned him concerning whether he had any illegal substances or stolen property in the vehicle. Crumpton told him no, but refused Swanson's request that he consent to a search, explaining that normally he would say yes but that he was in a hurry that night.

Swanson testified that based on his previous experience as a narcotics investigator, he was suspicious that Crumpton was concealing drugs in his anal cavity, so he informed Crumpton that he was going to call for a canine unit. The drug dog and his handler arrived, and after circling the car once, alerted on the driver's door on the back seam near the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Fifadara v. Goyal
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 25 October 2012
    ... ... to another state. He argued [733 S.E.2d 480]that her behavior affected A.G. because each event was an attempt to impede [318 Ga.App. 198]his bond with the child ... ...
  • Lynch v. Horton
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 7 September 2010
    ...parent-child relationship between the child and [Horton], consistent with the best interest of the child[.]” OCGA § 19-9-3(a)(3)(N).692 S.E.2d 39 Further, in light of Lynch's forgery of a court order and admission to such crime, the trial court was authorized to conclude that Lynch's action......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT