How a Lack of “Reasonable Suspicion” Can Affect Your Georgia Drug Case

A police officer is free to approach any person and ask them questions–including consent to search their property–without necessarily suspecting that person of a crime. So long as the officer does not detain the person and they are free to walk away without penalty, that is what courts consider a “first-tier encounter” not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s rules governing police searches. If the officer has a “particularized and objective basis” justified by “specific and articulable facts” for suspecting possible criminal activity, however, they can initiate a “second-tier encounter,” during which the officer can detain the person for further investigation.

Court of Appeals: K-9 Officers Lacked Lawful Basis for Search of Defendant’s Car

As the Georgia Court of Appeals explained in a recent decision, Shumate v. State, a police officer cannot initiate a second-tier encounter based on reasonable suspicion of a possible crime , abandon that investigation, and then conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s property in the hopes of discovering some other crime. In this particular case, the Court of Appeals held that police crossed this line when they conducted a K-9 search of the defendant’s vehicle, which uncovered evidence of possible drug trafficking.

This case began when two Georgia officers on patrol with a K-9 unit visited a convenience store. They observed a car in the parking lot with two occupants and “fogged windows,” which the officers considered suspicious. They decided to initiate a first-tier encounter with the vehicle’s occupants. During this encounter, the officers asked the driver–the defendant in this case–for his drivers license. The officers determined the license itself was valid, although the person pictured on the license was not the defendant.

At this point, the officers initiated a second-tier encounter based on their reasonable suspicion that the defendant was using someone else’s driver’s license. The officers handcuffed the defendant and continued asking questions of him as well as his passenger. Based on their inconsistent answers, the officers decided to have their K-9 unit conduct a dog sniff around the defendant’s vehicle. This led the officers to discover drugs in the car, leading to the defendant’s arrest.

The problem with this sequence of events, the Court of Appeals explained in its decision, is that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of drug activity to justify the K-9 search. The officers had sufficient grounds to detain the defendant on reasonable suspicion of using someone else’s driver’s license. But the officers never actually conducted an investigation into that possible crime. Instead, they immediately “abandoned” that inquiry and pivoted to conducting a drug investigation. The appellate court said that violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, and as such, the evidence collected in the K-9 search could not be used as evidence against him at trial.

Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers Today

When you are on trial for any serious crime, you have the right to challenge the means by which the police obtained evidence against you. An experienced Atlanta drug crimes lawyer can review the government’s conduct and help you determine whether there are grounds to file a motion to suppress. Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers today. We serve clients throughout Georgia including Atlanta, Dunwoody, Alpharetta, Cobb County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Johns Creek and Sandy Springs.

Source:

efast.gaappeals.us/download?filingId=6b51ed97-e727-4d84-be91-c266ab1edf1c