“On a ppellate r eview of

a rulingon a motion to suppress, the trial cour t's f ind i ng s on 1 disputed fac ts will be upheld unless clea rly err oneous, and its application of the law to undisputed fac ts is subject to de novo re v iew.” Re gis te v . S tate , 292 Ga. 154, 155- 156 (734 SE2d 19) (2012) (Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Suprem e Court of Ge orgia

D e c id e d: O c to be r 2 0, 201 4

S1 3G 17 93 . THE STATE v. W ALKER.

HINES , Pr esid in g J us tice. T hi s C ourt g rant e d a w ri t of c e rt io rari to th e C ourt of Appe a ls in Walker

v. State , 323 G a . A pp. 558 (7 47 S E 2d 5 1) (20 13), t o det ermine if th a t C ourt

e rr e d in re ve rs in g the tr ia l c ourt’ s de ni a l o f the m ot io n t o su ppr e ss e vi de nc e of

c oc a in e fo und a s a

re sul t o f an e nc ount e r b e tw e e n a pol ic e of fi c e r and E rne st Wa lk e r , S r . F i n d i n g t h a tt h e C o u r to f A p p e a l s e rr e d , w e r e v e r s e t h a tC our t’ s ju dg m ent
. A c c ord in g t o the fa c ts a s f ound byth e tr ia l c ourt a ft e r the h ear in g on Wa lk e r’ s m ot io n to sup pre ss , O ff ic e r D a vi d A dri a nc e , of

th e Warne r R obbi ns 1 Pol ic e D epart m e nt , w a s patr ol li ng an are a ne a r an e le m e nt a rysc hool a t 1 2: 12

a.m . on Feb ru ary 23 , 20 11 ; he had been adv is ed to be o n t he lo ok ou t fo r a bl ackWal ke r p e tit ion e d f or an in te rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l f ro m th e de nia l of

his pret ri a l mo tio n to 2 suppress under the proc edure s of OCGA § 5-6- 34 (b), a nd the petition was denie d by the Court of Ap pe a ls. 2 m ale in dar k clot hi ng wh o was a su sp ect in th e attempted th eft of a moto rcycle. O ff ic e r A dri a nc e saw Wa lk e r, w ho w a s we a ri ng a hood e d blue sw e a ts hi rt and lig ht

- col or ed p ant s, o n f

oo t o n t he g ro un ds of

th e scho ol . Offi cer Adr ian ce app ro ached W alk er, tell in g h im to r em ov e his han ds fr om hi s p ock ets; rath er th a n c om pl y in g, Wa lk e r b e c a m e ve rba ll yc om ba ti ve , y elled tha t h e w a s “ ju st tr yin g t o g et ho m e,” a

nd “t oo k o ff

ru nn in g t hr ou gh back yard s, to ss in g s tu ff as he r an.” Off

icer Ad ri ance gav e chase and caugh t Wal ker ; th e items Walk er di scard ed in clu ded crack cocain e and a p ip e fo r s m ok in g cr ack cocain e, which he sou ght to sup pre ss . A ft e r a

ju rytr ia l, Wa lk e r w a s c onvi c te d of pos se ss io n 2 of c oc a in e w ith i nt e ntto di stri but e and o bstruc ti on o f a la w e nfo rc e m e ntof

fi c e r; th e se c onvi c ti ons w e re re ve rs e d by th e C ourt o f Appe a ls

. Furth e r f a c ts m a ybe fo un d i n t he o pi ni on of

th e Cou rt of

App eals. Id

. As the Court of Appe al s c hara ct eri ze d the c ase on appea l, Wa lk e r c ont e nds th a t he w a s sub je c te d t o an i nve st ig a to ryde te nt io n wh en an o ff

icer st op ped hi m

as he s tep ped of

f th e pr em is es o f an el em entary school and instructe d him to rem ove his ha nds from his po ckets . Walk er con ten ds th at th e of fi cer lackeda part icu lari zed and ob jectiv e basi s f

orsu sp ectin g t hat he was inv ol ved in criminal3

a c ti vi ty , a s re qui re d for suc h a s to p, and tha t, inth e a bse nc e of any reaso nab le, arti cul abl e su sp i ci on of criminal activ ity, h e was e nt it le d t o r e f

u s e t o c o m

p l yw i t h t h e o f

f i c e r ' s d e m a n d s an dt o e nd th e encou nt er b y ru nn in g away fr om th e of fi cer. Becaus e the o ff

icer lacked a reason abl e, articu lab l e s us pi cio n o f cri m in al activ ity, Wa lk e r c ont e nd s, the de te nt io n vi ol a te d hi s Fo urth A m e ndm e nt ri gh t to be fr ee fro m u n lawfu l search es and seizu res, an d t he tr ial c ourt e rr e d i n de ny in g hi s m ot io n to su ppr e ss a quant ityof

c oc a in e a nd o th e r drug -r e late d it e m s tha t w e re obt a in e d a s a re sul t o f the il le ga l d e te nt io n. Id. a t 5 53 ( 1). The Court of Appe al s dete rm ined that Office r Adriance la cke d arti cula ble

sus pi c io n, and i n do in g so , se t f orth the fo ll ow in g f

orm ul a ti on: Fourth A m e ndm e ntju ri spr ude nc e re c ogni z e s thre e ti e rs of pol ic e -c it iz e n e nc ount e rs : ( 1) c omm uni c a ti on betw e e n po li c e and c it iz e ns i nvol vi ng n o c oe rc io n or de te nt io n and the re fore w ithout th e c om pa ss of th e Fou rth A m e ndm e nt , (2 ) b ri e f se iz ure s th a t m ust be s up po rt ed b y r eason abl e s us pi cio n, and (3 ) f ul l- scale arres ts th at m ust be sup porte d by pro ba bl e c ause . In th e fi rs t t ie r, pol ic e of fi c e rs m a ya ppr oa c h c it iz e ns, a sk f

or id e nt if ic a ti on, and fr eel yque st io n the c itiz en w ithout anybasis or be lie f that the cit iz en is i nvolv ed in c ri m in a l a c ti vi ty , a s lo ng a s th e off ic e rs do not de ta in th e c it iz e n or create the impr ess io n t hat th e citizen m ay no t leave. T he s econ d t ier occu rs when th e of

fi cer actuall y con du cts a br ief inv esti gat iv e . . . st op o f the c it iz e n [ unde r Terry v . O hio , 392 U. S. 1 ( 88 S C t 1 868, 20 L E 2d 8 89) (1 968) ]

. In th is le ve l, a pol ic e of fi cer , e ve n i n the abs ence of p r o b abl e ca

us e, m ay sto p p erso ns and detai n t hem bri e fl y , w he n the of

fi c e r h a s a part ic ul a ri z e d and o bj e c ti ve ba si s f or su sp ectin g t he p erso ns are in vo lv ed in criminal acti v i t y. . . . To m ake a secon d- tiersto p, . . . a po lice o ff icer must po ss ess m or e than a sub je c ti ve , unp a rt ic ulariz e d su spi c io n or hun c h. T he of

fi c e r' s4

a c ti on m ust be ju st if

ie d by spe c if

ic a nd a rt ic ul a

bl e fa c ts w hi c h, ta ken together w ith ra tional i nfere nce s from those fac ts, re asona bly warr ant in trus io n. Fu rt her , th e cou rt m us t be abl e to deter m in e that the dete ntion wa s neithe r arbitrary nor hara ssing. .

. . Moreove r, in de te rm in in g whe th e r the st op wa s jus ti fi e d by re a son a bl e sus pi c io n, th e tot alit y of

th e c ir cumstan ces—t he wh ol e pict ur e—must be tak en into ac count. Id. a t 5 59 ( 1) (C it a ti on, pun c tu a ti on, and p a re nt he ti c a l o m it te d. ) T he C ourt o f Appea ls then c oncluded tha t the fa ct s of the e ncounter showe d that [w]h at th e of

fi cer m ay h av e int end ed as a fi rs t- tierencou nt er . . . a lm ost im m e di a te ly e sc a late d i nt o a

se c ond- ti e r s to p wh en the off ic e r c omm a nde d W a lk e r t o re m ove hi s ha nds fr om hi s po c ke ts ; a s s uc h, th e de te nt io n ha d to be sup porte d by a rt ic ul a bl e sus pi c io n. [Ci t.] Id. a t 5 61. In do in g s o , th e Cou rt of

App eals wen t ast ray; as it pr op erly reco gn ized init s c it a ti on t o Te rr

y , it is a se iz ure of

a perso n th at m us t be sup porte d by arti cul abl e su sp icio n. An d, it is clear fr om th e facts of th is cas e, t h at W al k er

wa s not seiz ed

with in th e m eanin g o f th e F ou rt h Amend m ent by Of fi cer A dri a nc e ’s di re c ti on tha t h e re m ove hi s ha nds fr om hi s po c ke ts ; a

c omm a nd fr om a la w e nfo rc e m e ntof

fi c e r, a lo ne , is not suf

fi c ie nt to c ons ti tu te a

se iz ure fo r pu rp os es o f th e Fo ur th Am end m ent . Rather, u nd er t h e Fo ur th Am end m ent , a

se iz ure oc c urs “[ o] nl yw he n the off ic e r, by m e a ns of phy si c a l for c e or sho w of5

aut ho ri ty, has in so m e w ay r es tr ain ed th e lib erty o f a citi zen.” Te rr y , su pr a at 19 ( n. 16)

. A nd, it is unque st io ne d tha t O ff ic e r A dri a nc e di d no t a

ppl yany p h ys i cal f o r ce t o r es t r ai n W al k er ’ s l i b er t y u n t i l af t er W al k er d i s car d edth e i t ems he sou ght to sup pre ss ; he di d not touc h Wa lk e r o r d is pl a ya w e a pon, nor w e re ot herof fi cers th ere su ch as migh t con st itu te a “th reaten in g p resen ce.” See Unite d States v . M

ende nhall , 446 U

. S. 544, 554 (10 0 SC t 1 870, 64 L E 2d 4 97) ( 1980 ) . Ac co r d i n g l y, w h et h erW al k erwas s ei zed b ef o r e h e ab an d o n edth e i t ems de pe nds upo n w hether

he ha d be e n se iz e d thro ugh a sho w of a ut hor ityon O ff ic e r A dri a nc e ’s part ; i f h e w a s no t thus sei z e d, hi s a bandon m e ntof

th e pr op erty was no t the frui t of a seizu re, and th e m ot io n t o s up pr ess th e evid ence was p ro per ly den ied

. Cal i f o r nia v. Hodari D ., 49 9 U.S . 62 1, 6 29 (1 11 SCt 1547 , 113 L E 2d 690) (19 91)

. Se e a ls o Brown v. State , 239 G a . A pp. 674 , 676 (1 ) ( 52 2 S E2d 41 ) (1 99 9) (“ [D]efen dan t was no t ‘s eized’ wh en th e cocaine was

a bandon e d. H e ha d no t b e e n t ouc he d by th e of fi c ers; he di d no t s ubm it

to th e off ic e rs ' “s how of

a ut hor ity ” —the fl a shi ng blu e l ig ht s. Si m pl yput , de fe ndant was in a state o f f

lig ht when th e cocaine was di scard ed and it cann ot be said th at it was th e fru it o f an ill egal arr est.”) Wal ker c ontends that he wa s sei ze d when O ffice r Adriance told him to6

re m ove hi s ha

nds fr om hi s p ock ets, a s thi s w a s an a ss e rt io n of th e of fi c e r’ s aut ho ri ty. Howev er, th is ig no res clear p receden t fr om th e Uni tedSt ates Su pr em e Co ur t th at, abs ent ph ysical fo rce, f or an enco un ter wit h a p ol ice of fi cer to be c ons id e re d a

se iz ur e u nder

th e Fou rth A m e ndm e nt , th e re m ust be

“ sub m is si on to th e assert io n o f au th or ity.” I d

. at 62 6 ( Em ph asis in or ig in al.) Se e a ls o Bre ndlin v. California , 551 U

. S. 249, 254 (I I) (A ) ( 127 SC t 2 400, 168 LE 2d 13 2) (2007 ) (“A police office r m ay m ake a se iz ure bya

show of authority and with ou t th e us e of

ph ysical f

or ce, but th e re is no se iz ure w ith ou t a ctu al sub m is si on ; otherw ise, there is at m ost an at te m pted se iz ure, so far a s the Fourth Am endm ent i s c once rned.”) (E m phasis a dded.) A nd, inste ad of subm itting to Off icer Ad ri ance’s di rectio n an d r em ov in g h is han ds fr om hi s p ock ets, W alk er

ran. Alth o u g h W alker de scribe s the c om m and to take his hands ou t of his poc ke ts a s a

“s e c ond- ti e r” e nc ount e r, it w a s no t; w ithout

hi s sub m is si on to th e

c omm a nd, it

w a s a t m ost

an a tt e m pt e d se iz ure , and “[a ] tt e m pt e d se iz ure s of

a per so n ar e beyon d t he s cop e of th e Fo u r t h A mend m ent . [Cit .]” C ount yof Sacrame nto v. Lew is , 523 U

. S. 833, 845 (n. 7) (11 8 SC t 1708 , 140 L E 2d 1 043)I n th is opi nio n, we a dd re ss onl y the qu e sti on

of wh e the r Wa lke r’ s r ig hts un de r t he F ourt h 3 Am en dm en tt o t h e U n i t edS t at es C o n s t i tu t i o nwe re v i o l at e d ; n o q u e s t i o ni s p o s edre gar d i n g a v i o l a t i o nu n d e r

t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o v i s i o n o f t h e G e o r g i a C o n s t i tu t i o n . S e e A rt
. I, S e c . I, P ar . X III of the Ga . Co ns t. of 19 83 . A lth ou g h Wa lke r c ite d th e Ge or g ia Con sti tut ion

in h is m oti on

to su pp re ss, “ the [tr ia l] c ourt ru le d o nly

on the F ourt

h A me ndme nt b a sis , a

nd the re is no state constitutional ruling for

us to review. It is appellant’s oblig ation to pursue the g rounds he raises a nd obtain a ruling on them in the trial court, if he wishes to obta in appellate r eview. [Cits.] ” Thomas v. Sta te , 2 03 Ga . App . 529 , 530 -5 31 (1 ) ( 41 7 SE 2d 52 9) (1 99 2) . T hu s, pr op e rl y , th e Court of Ap pe a ls did no t a dd re ss a ny su c h c la im, and , in

any e ven t, it ha s b e e n n ote d th a t ou r C on sti tut ion

pr ote c ts ag ainst “unre asonable ” sea rche s and seizures just as the F ourth A me n dment does. Sa le rm on v . S tate , 280 Ga. 735, 738 (1) ( 632 SE2d 645) (2006). F urther, when this Court gr anted the a pplication for cer tiorari, the question posed ref err ed only to the Four

th Amendment, and did not embra ce a ny issue under the Geor g ia Constitut ion. See id. 7 (19 98)

. 3 C it in g Me ndenhall , su pr a, Walkerno net hel ess arg ues th at he was s eized whe n Offic er Adriance issued the c om m and to re m ove his ha nds from his pocket s, be ca

use “a person has be en ‘se iz ed’ w ithin the m ea ning of the Fourth Am endm ent only if, in view of al l th e ci rcum stanc es surrou nding the incide nt,

a reaso nab le per so n wo ul d h ave bel iev ed th at he was n ot fr ee to leave,” id. at 554, and a

re a son a bl e pe rs on w oul d so re gard O ffic e r A dri a nc e ’s di re c ti on. H ow e ve r, a s Hodari D. , supra , m ad e cl ear, the e xistenc e of such a re asona ble bel ief wo ul d n ot end th e m atter. Rath er, Hodari D. sp ecificall y no tes t h at Me ndenhall says t hat a pers on has been s eized “ o n l y i f , ” n ot th at he h as b een seized“wh enev er”; it st ates a ne c ess ary , b u t no t a suf fi c ie nt , con di tio n f

orse i zur e—o r, more p recis ely, fo r s eizur e effected8

th rou gh a ‘s how of a ut hor ity . ’ Hodari D. , sup ra

a t 6 28. A nd, a s Hodari D. a ls o m ade cl e a r, w ithout sub m is si on t o tha t s how of a ut hor ity, th ere wa s no t a

se iz ure . Wa lk e r d id

not

su bmit t o Of

fi cer Adr ian ce’s c omm and , and th us he was n ot seized u nt il Of fi cer Ad ri ance physic allyseized h im. That Of fi cer Adr ian ce pur su ed Wal kerwhen he ran do e s no t a lt e r m a tt e rs a s “ be in g c ha se d i s not tant a m ount to be in g ‘ se iz e d’ in vi ol atio n o f th e Fo ur th Am end m ent . [Cit s.]” Smith v . State , 217 G a . A pp. 680 (1) (45 8 SE 2d 704) (1 995) (E m pha si s i n or ig in a l. ) Se e a ls o Sims v . State , 258 Ga. App . 66 2, 6 63 (5 74 SE2 d 8 79 ) ( 20 02 ) ( “[ B]ec aus e Sims th rew away the b ag

con tain in g t he cocain e when Off icer Jon es was c has in g him, th e tr ial c ou rt was

aut hor iz e d t o f

in d th at th e c oc a in e w a s no t s e iz e d a s the re sul t o f a se a rc h bu t was in st ead aban do ned bef or e Sims s ub m itt ed to th e o ff icer' s r equ est t o s to p.”) (P un ctu atio n o m itt ed.) H odar i D

. ’s hol di ng tha t the re must be sub m is si on t o a n of fi c e r’ s s how of auth or ity in or derfo r th ere to be a seizu re th ereby h as certain ly been recog ni zed in th e appel late d ecisio ns of th is St ate. See, e .g., Gray v . State , 254 Ga. App . 48 7, 4 88 (1 ) ( 56 2 S E2d 71 2) ( 2 0 0 2) (“ Alt ho ug h Gr ay's v ehi cle was si gna le d t o st op i n a

pol ic e sho w of aut hor ity , G ray imm e di a te ly fl e d the c a r[ ;9

he] had no t su bmitt ed to auth or ity, n orwas h e in p hys ical cus to dy, wh en h is car

w a s s to ppe d or whe n he di sc a rde d the pa pe r b a g c ont a in in g the il le ga l drug s. ” ); Bro wn , supra ; W

alke r v . State , 228 G a . A pp. 509 , 510 (1 ) ( 493 SE 2d 1 93) (19 97) (Su spe c t “ w a s no t ‘s ei z e d’ w he n he fi rs t g otba c k i n the c a r at [ th e office r’s] comm and. [Cit .] He wa s not ‘seiz ed’ u n t i l h e wa s finall y [ca ptured.] ”); Hunt v . State , 205 Ga . App. 490 (42 3 SE2d 24) (1 992) (S uspec ts attemptedto dr iv e awa

y when of

fi cers acti v at ed b l ue li gh ts , on e thr ow in g an ob ject fr om th e vehi cle as th ey fled.) Nonethe le ss, Wa lker note s seve ral opinion s of the appell at e courts o f this State th a t h e c ont e nds de m ons tr a te th a t a se iz ure oc c urs a t the time of th e of fi cer’s asser tio n o f au th or ity, w it hout re gar d t o anyis sue of

th e sus pe c t’ s submi ssion to that a

uthori t y. Howe ver, his rel iance on these opinion s is

m is pl a c e d. A lthoug h the C ourt of Appe a ls in He rnandez-E spino v. State , 324 G a . A pp. 849 , 850 -85 2 ( 1) (75 2 SE2 d 10 ) ( 2013 ), de te rm in e d tha t a se iz ure

oc c urr e d w he n th e off

ic e r “t ol d” th e sus pe c t to “j ust gi ve m e th e dr ugs y ou j ust boug ht , ” it

di d so w ithout

anye xa m in a ti on of the e ff e c t o f the sus pe c t’ s f

a il ure t o co mp l y wi t h th e d i r e c t i o n , o r th e p r eced en t s o f

th e Un i t edS t at es S up r emeThe opinion rec ites that the s uspect “denied having a ny drug s. The off

icer then aske d for 4 con sent to se arc h, and

[the su sp e c t] a g re e d. Th e of fi c e r f ound c ra c k c oc a ine in [the su sp e c t’ s] pocket.” 10 C ourt r e gardi ng the m a tt e r. 4 We have re pe a te dl y c aut io ne d th a t our de c is io ns st a nd onl yfo r the po in ts rais ed by th e p arti es and decid ed b y the cou rt . See, e.g., State v. Outen , 289 Ga

. 579 (7 14 SE2d 58 1) (201 1); Palme r v . State , 282 G a . 466 , 651 S. E

. 2d 8 6 (2007 ). “Q ue st io ns wh ic h m e re ly lu rk inth e re c ord , ne ithe r b rou ght to th e a tt e nt io n of th e c ourt n or rul e d up on, are not to be considere d as having bee n so dec ided a s to constitute pr e c e d e n t s . ” I d

. a t4 6 8 , 6 5 1 S

. E

. 2 d8 6 ( c i t a t i o n an dp u n c tu a t i on om it te d). H ol to n v . P hy

si c ia n O nc ol ogy

Se rv ic es, LP , 292 G a , 864 , 869 -87 0 ( 2) (72 SE 2d 702) (2 013)

. Furth e r, e xa m in a ti on o f o th e r opin io ns Wa lk e r c it e s for thi s pr opos it io n shows that he has a

m isundersta nding of the f act s involved. For instance , i n St at e v. Ban ks , 223 G a . A pp. 838 (47 9 SE 2d 168) (19 96) , a lthoug h su bm is si on to th e pol ic e off

ic e r’ s di re c ti on is not

spe c if ic a ll ym e nt io ne d i n the re c it a ti on o f th e fa c ts , fr om

w ha t i s r e porte d, it

app e ars th a t the sus pe c t c om pl ie d w ith the di re c ti on th a t he “t a ke hi s hand out of hi s po c ke t, ” id

. a t 8 39, and thus , th e C ourt of App eals cor rectly d etermined th at a seizur e had occur redat th at po in t, even th ough th e C ourt c hara c te ri z e d t he po in t o f s e iz ure a s the of fi c e r’ s a c t o fAlthough the majority opinion in Sams do e s no t me nti on any c on sti tut ion a l pr ov isi on , it s 5 relianc e on Te rry , s up ra , r e ve a ls that it wa s d e c ide d und e r t

he F ourt h A me ndme nt. 11 “de m a ndi ng tha t h e re m ove hi s ha nd f rom hi s po cket.” Id

. a t 8 40. Se e a ls o D urde n v. State , 32 0 Ga. Ap p. 2 18 , 22 0 ( 73 9 S E2d 67 6) (2 01 3) (Th e su sp ect

re m oved hi s hands f

rom hi s po c ke ts w he n di re c te d, and “ e ve n i f the of fi c e r’ s in iti al in teracti on with [th e su sp ect] c ou ld be char acterized as a fir st -t ier

enco un ter, it escalated in to a s econ d- tier st op wh en th e of fi cer or der ed Du rd en to rem ove his h an d s f

r om his pocke ts”); Brown v . State , 301 G a . A pp. 82, 84 (68 6 SE2d 793) (2 009) (“ What b e gan a s a fi rs t- ti e r e nc ount e r e sc a late d i nt o a

sec ond-tier stop whe n the offic er told h i m t o r emove his hands from his pocket s,” and the suspec t re m oved one hand.); Pe te rs v. State , 242 G a . App. 816, 818 (5 3 1 S E 2 d

386 ) ( 2000 ) ( T he sus pe c t “ obe y e d [ th e of fi c e rs ’] c omm a nd” to st op. ) ( E ldri dge , J. , c onc urr in g sp e c ia ll y . ) W al ker a lso conte nds that Sams v. State , 2 6 5 G a . 5 3 4 ( 4 5 9 S E 2 d551 ) (1 99 5) , app ears t o b e decid ed o n t he th eor y that a comm and fr om a law enf or cem ent of

fi cer with wh ich a su sp ect do es n ot comply, b y its elf, co ns tit ut es

a se iz ure und e r the Fou rth A m e ndm e nt
. T he m a jo ri ty in Sams di d not a ddr e ss 5 th e hol di ng i n Hodari D. , sup ra, and ce rt a in ly di d no t r e a c h the c onc lu si onWe note that the trial cour t’s order did not find that W alker

stopped in response to Of fice r 6 Adrianc e’s c ommand to remove his hands f rom his pockets. See Re

gis te v . S tate , supra. 12 Walk er u rg es. See H

ol to n , su pr a. Rather , th e Sam s opi ni on m e re ly pr oc e e ds f r o m t h e S t at e’ s p o s i t i o n “ t h atth e o f f i cerh ads u f

f i ci en tg r o u n d s to d et ai n S ams for que st io ni ng and t o arr e st Sam s and tha t the se a rc h of Sam s f ol lo w in g the

arres t g ave pr ob abl e caus e to b eliev e the truckcon tain ed d ru gs ,” Sams , su pr a at 535 (1) , and r e

je c ts th a t c ont e nt io n, de te rm ining in st e a d tha t “ [t ] he of fi c e r' s de c is io n t o or der Sams to st op w a s ba se d on ly on S a m s a

ppare ntra c e and the fact th at Sams walk ed away up on seein g t he o ff icer.” Id . a t 5 35 (1 ,2)

. Howe ver, to the exte nt that Sam s, or any other de ci sion of the a ppella te Courts of th is St a te , c a n be rea d a s s tandi ng f or th e pr opos it io n tha t a n of fi c e r’ s

unc om pl ie d-w ith c omm a nd a lo ne c ons ti tu te s a se iz ure w ithout

re gard to th e hol di ng o f Hodari D. , th ose c a se s are he re byove rr ul e d. Fi na ll y , Wa lk e r argu e s tha t, e ve n i f h e di d no t c om pl yw ith O fficer A dri a nc e ’s c omm a nd to r e m ove hi s ha nds fr om hi s po c ke ts , he non e th e le ss st oppe d w a lk in g, a

sho w of sub m is si on to th e of fi c e r’ s a ut hor ity . B ut , it

m ust 6 be rem em bere d, “the re is no seiz ure w ithout actual sub m is si on” to th e sho w of aut ho ri ty, Bre ndlin , sup ra (e m pha si s s uppl ie d), and W a lk e r c e rt a in ly di d no tAs we f ind that the Court of Appea ls erre d in determiningthat Walker had be en seized 7 wh e n O ff ic e r A dr ianc e c omm and e d him to re mov e his ha nd s fr om his po c ke ts, we ne e d n ot a dd re ss its conclusion that Office r Adria nce did not at that time have “an obje ctive, ar ticulable suspicion of criminal ac tivity .” W

alker , 323 Ga. App. at 563 (1) (Punctuation omit ted.) 13 sub m it to th e a c tu a l d ir e c ti on. E ve n a ss um in g th a t Wa lk e r s to ppe d i n r e spo nse to Offic er Adriance ’s comm and, “to com ply w ith an order to stop—and thus to bec om e seiz ed—a

suspec t m

ust do m ore than halt te m porarily ; he m

ust submit to po lice aut ho ri ty
. . . .” Unite d States v . B aldwin , 496 F. 3d 2 15, 218 (I I) (2 nd Cir. , 2007). If Wa lker stopped in re spons e to Offic er Adriance ’s comm and, it

was o nl y a tem

po rary h alti ng , andno t an actu al su b mi s s io n t o t he ass erted aut ho ri ty. See U

ni te d Stat es v . Salaza r , 60 9 F .3d 10 59 , 10 66 (I I) (C) (1 0 Cir., th 20 10 ) ( “M r. S alazar did no t su bmit t o [ th e sh ow of ] aut ho ri ty un til he compl ied

w ith T roo pe r B e rne r’ s c omm a nd to ge t out of th e pi c kup. ” ) A s W a lk e r d id not 7

su bmit t o Of

fi cer Ad ri ance’s sh ow of

auth or ity b efo re aban do ni ng th e items at is sue , th e C ourt o f Appe a ls e rr e d i n re ve rs in g th e tr ia l c ourt’ s de ni a l o f W a lk e r’ s

m ot io n t o su

ppr e ss . Jud gm e ntre ve rs e d. A ll the Jus ti c e s c onc ur, e xc e ptB e nham , J. , w ho di ss e nt s.S1 3G 17 93 . THE STATE v. W ALKER.

B E N H A M, Jus ti c e , di ss e nt in g. I w ri te be c ause I r e spe c tf ul ly di ss e nt
. I be li e ve th e C ourt o f Appe a ls ’s op in io n was well- reaso ned and reached th e rig ht resu lt wh en it con clu ded th at th e tri al cou rt erred by fai lin g to gr ant Walk er’s m ot io n t o s up pr ess . See Walk er v. Sta te , 323 Ga . App. 558 (74 7 SE2d 5 1 ) ( 2 0 1 3). A cc ording ly , I ca nnot join inth is C ourt’ s m a

jo ri ty opi ni on.