Yawn v. State
| Decision Date | 20 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 50252,50252,3 |
| Parties | D. K. YAWN v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lovett & New, Walter H. New, Quitman, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., William O. Hitchcock, Asst. Dist. Atty., Valdosta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Under the decision in Anderson v. State, 123 Ga.App. 57, 179 S.E.2d 286 the officer had a right to stop the defendant for a routine check when he saw him driving away from what appears from the evidence here to have been a closed pool hall and building at approximately 4:45 a.m.
2. The only evidence that the defendant possessed marijuana is the testimony of the state's witness that while he took the defendant to the police station for the purpose of administering a chemical test to determine the amount of alcohol in his blood (Ga.L.1974, pp. 633, 672; Code Ann. § 68A-902.1) the vehicle was searched by another police officer who later informed him he had discovered marijuana therein. The statement is hearsay, since the witness was not present but was in the station with the defendant while the car was allegedly being searched. Accordingly, it was error to deny the motion to suppress.
3. From the record before us it does not appear that the defendant was arrested for any offense prior to being taken to the police station, or that he consented to go voluntarily. Consent to have the test administered is presumed only where the defendant has been 'lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor' and is always 'incidental to a lawful arrest.' Code Ann. § 68-1625.1. We do not pass on the issue of whether the defendant was under lawful arrest at the time the vehicle was searched.
4. The odor of marijuana smoke is not, in and of itself, sufficient to afford probable cause for a warrantless search, but it may be considered and may be a part of a totality of circumstances sufficient to validate one. Brewer v. State, 129 Ga.App. 118, 120, 199 S.E.2d 109 as modified by Rogers v. State, 131 Ga.App. 136, 139, 205 S.E.2d 901 and Cunningham v. State, 131 Ga.App. 133, 136, 205 S.E.2d 899.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence of a quantity of marijuana allegedly discovered in the defendant's automobile.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Decker
...into a private residence to effect a warrantless arrest. See Rogers v. State, 131 Ga.App. 136, 205 S.E.2d 901 (1974); Yawn v. State, 134 Ga.App. 77, 213 S.E.2d 178 (1975); and Clare v. State, 135 Ga.App. 281, 217 S.E.2d 638 (1975). The aroma of burnt marijuana may have a tendency to linger ......
-
Berry v. State
...S.E.2d 374; Rogers v. State, 131 Ga.App. 136(3), 205 S.E.2d 901; Culpepper v. State, 132 Ga.App. 733(1), 209 S.E.2d 18; Yawn v. State, 134 Ga.App. 77(4), 213 S.E.2d 178. However, "[p]robable cause need not be defined in relation to any one particular element, but may exist because of the to......
-
Allen v. State
...appellant's car which was slowly cruising through a high school parking lot where frequent thefts had been reported. In Yawn v. State, 134 Ga.App. 77, 213 S.E.2d 178, this court held that a policeman had a right to stop appellant when he saw him driving away from a closed pool hall building......
-
O'Keefe v. State
...(184 SE2d 37); Rogers v. State, 131 Ga.App. 136(3) (205 SE2d 901); Culpepper v. State, 132 Ga.App. 733(1) (209 SE2d 18); Yawn v. State, 134 Ga.App. 77(4) (213 SE2d 178)." Berry, supra. Here, the alert of the drug detection dog, the manner of driving of his car by the appellant, the strange ......