SECOND DI VI SI ON

A NDREWS, P. J.

, M C F A D DEN and RA

Y, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s /

M ar ch 12, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 4 A1 87 6 . THE STATE v . NEW

.

R A Y , J u d g e.

Th e St at e ap p eal s fro m t h e g ran t o f a m o ti o n t o s u p p res s fi l ed b y Kev i n Ch arl es

New aft er h e w as i n di ct ed fo r h i s al l eg ed po s ses s i o n of m et h am p h et am i n e wi t h i n t en t

t o di s t ri b u te, p o s s es s i o n o f m et h am p het am i n e, an d p o s s es s i o n o f m ari ju an a, al l

p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 1 6 -1 3 -3 0 ; t h eft by recei vi n g, i n v i o l at io n o f OCGA § 1 6 -8 -7 ;

a n d p o s s es s io n o f a dru g-rel at ed o b ject u n der OCGA § 16 -1 3 -3 2 .2

. Th e St at e

co n ten d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g t h e m o ti o n b ecau s e l aw en fo rcem en t

act ed reas o n ab l y

u n d er t h e t o t al i t y o f t h e ci rcu m s t an ces an d OCGA § 1 7 -5 -3 0 o n l y

req u i res s u p p res s i o n o f ev i d en ce s ei zed d u ri n g an u n l awfu l search ; l aw en fo rcem en t

a ct ed i n go o d fai t h ; an d t h e p u rp o s es o f t h e ex cl u s i on ary ru l e are n o t serv ed i n t h i scas e b y s u p p res s i n g t h e ev i d en ce. Fo r t h e reas o n s th at fo l l o w, we are co n s trai n ed to

affi rm

.

[T] h ree fu n d am en t al p ri n ci p l es

. . . m u s t b e fo l lo wed wh en co n d uct i n g

ap p el l at e rev iew o f a t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g o n a m o t io n t o s u p p res s

. Fi rs t

,

wh en a m o ti o n t o s u p p res s i s h eard b y t h e t ri al j u d ge, t hat ju d g e s it s as

t h e t ri er o f fact s

. Th e t ri al ju d g e hears t h e ev id en ce, an d [h er] fi n d i n g s

b as ed u p o n co n fl i ct i n g e v i d en ce are an al o g o u s t o th e v erd i ct o f a ju ry

an d sh o u l d n ot b e d i s t u rb ed b y a rev i ewi n g co u rt i f t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce

t o s u p p ort t h em

. Seco n d

, t h e t ri al co urt ’ s d eci s i o n wi t h reg ard t o

q u e s t i o n s of fact an d cred i bi l i t y m us t b e accep t ed u n l es s cl earl y

erro n eo us

. T h i rd

, t h e rev i ewi n g co urt m u s t co n s t ru e t h e ev i d en ce m o s t

fav o rab ly t o t h e up ho l d i n g of t h e t ri al co urt ’ s fi n d in g s an d ju d g m en t

.

Th es e p ri n ci pl es ap p l y eq u al l y wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt ru led i n fav o r o f

t h e St at e o r t h e d efen d an t

.

(Ci tat i o n s an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed .) B r o wn v. S t at e

, 2 9 3 G a. 78 7

, 80 2 -8 0 3 (3 ) (b ) (2 )

(7 5 0 SE2 d 1 4 8 ) (2 0 1 3 ). To t he ex t en t t h at “ t h e ev i d en ce at a s u p p res s i o n h eari n g i s

u n co nt ro v ert ed an d t h e cred i bi l i t y o f w i t n es s es i s no t i n q ues t i o n

, we co n d u ct a d e

n o v o rev i ew o f t he t ri al co u r t ’s a p p l i cat io n o f t h e l aw t o t h e u n di s p u t ed fact s .”

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) Jo n es v. S t at e , 2 9 1 Ga. 3 5 , 3 6 -3 7 (1 ) (7 2 7 SE2 d 4 5 6 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

Th e u nd i s p u t ed ev i d en ce ad d uced at t h e m o t i o n t o su p pres s h eari n g s ho ws t h at

o n o r ab o u t No v em

b er 1 5

, 2 0 12

, l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers wi t h Hal l Co u n t y ’ s M u l t i

2Ag en cy Narco t i cs Sq u ad (“ M ANS U n i t ”) l earn ed fro m a G wi n n e t t Co un t y p o l i ce

o ffi cer t h at New p o ss es s ed o r was s el l in g d ru gs

. An offi cer w i t h t h e MANS Un i t at

t h e t i m e o f th e search t es t i fi ed t h at h e di d n o t kn o w t he s o urce o f t h e Gwi n n e t t

o f f i c e r ’ s i n fo rm at i o n

, an d t h at h e co u l d no t hav e g o t t en a s earch warran t b ecau s e

“ [w] e d i d n ’ t h av e an y

p ro b ab l e cau s e” an d b ecau s e “ [t ] h ere w as n o . . . ev i d en ce t o

b ack up t h at [New] was act ual l y s el l i n g ” d ru g s.

P r i o r t o i ni ti at i n g t h e search

, Ag en t Cas ey Iv ey

, wh o was w o rk i n g wi t h t h e

M ANS Un i t

, co n tact ed th e Gai n es v il l e Pro b at i o n Offi ce t o v eri fy New’ s p ro b at i o n

s t at u s. He w a s g i v en a co py o f New’ s s en t en ce, w h i ch i ncl u d ed a wai v er o f New’ s

Fo u rt h Am en d m en t ri g h t s ag ai n s t s earch an d s ei z u re. Offi cers t h en wen t t o New’ s

ad d re s s

. H e wal k ed o ut fro m th e area near hi s d et ach ed g arag e t o m eet t h em

, b ut

wh en t h e o ffi cers t o l d hi m th ey were t here t o s earch h i m p u rs u an t t o h i s Fo u rt h

Am en d m en t wai v er, New t o l d t h em h i s p ro b at io n h ad b een t erm i n at ed earl y

. Ag en t

Iv ey s h o wed Ne w t h e co p y o f h i s s en t en ce, w h i ch sai d h e had wai v ed h i s Fo u rt h

Am en d m en t ri g ht s t h ro u gh th e rem ai n d er o f h is p r o b a t io n

. Acco rd in g t o t h o s e

d o cu m en t s

, h i s p ro b at i o n w as n o t s ch ed ul ed t o en d fo r an o t h er t h ree y ears

. New t o ld

o ffi cers at l eas t t h ree t i m es t h at h e was n o l o n g er on p ro b at i o n

, s o p ri o r t o i n i t i at i n g

an y s earch , t wo o th er o ffi cers each s ep arat el y v eri fi ed New’ s p ro bat i on s t at u s . On e

3o ffi cer cal led Hal l Co u n t y Di s p at ch

, wh i ch ch eck ed b o th t h e Nat i o n al Cri m e

In fo rm at i o n Cen t er (“ NCIC”) an d t h e Geo rg i a Cri m e In fo rm at i on Cen t er (“ GCIC”)

d a t a b as es an d co n fi rm ed th at N ew was o n pro b at i o n ; t he o t h er o ffi cer co n t act ed a

r e p r e s en t at i v e fro m t h e pro bat i o n o ffi ce, wh o al s o co n fi rm ed t h at New was o n

p ro b at i o n an d h ad a v al i d Fo u rt h Am en d m en t wai v er.

Th e ag en t s

, wi t h o u t seek i n g o r o b t ai n i ng New’ s co n s en t

, t h en s e a r c h e d h i s

p ers o n

, t h e cu rt i l ag e o f hi s h o m e, an d a d et ach ed g arag e an d t h e ap art m en t ab o v e i t

.

Th ey fo un d a g l as s s m ok i n g d ev i ce co n t ai n i n g m et ham p h et am i n e res i d u e i n New’ s

l eft fro n t p o ck et

. W h en ag en t s ret raced t h e pat h N ew wal k ed fro m h i s g arag e t o m eet

t h em , t h ey

d i s co v ered a b u tan e l i g h t er an d a “ hi d e-away can ,” l ab el ed as an en erg y

d ri n k

, t h at co n tai n e d m e t h am p h et am i n e an d m ari

ju an a. Ag en t s al s o fo u nd i n an

ap art m en t ab o v e t he g arag e a l arg e s u m o f m o n ey an d a GPS d ev i ce t h at ch eck ed o ut

as s t o l en

.

Ho wev er, New’ s p ro b at i o n fo r t h e d ru g offen ses to wh i ch h e had p led g ui l t y

h ad i n d eed b een term i n at ed earl y an d h i s Fo u rt h Am en d m en t wai v er was n o l o n g er

v al i d

. Ni co l e J oh n s o n

, a H al l Co u n t y p ro b at i o n o ffi cer, h ad co m p l et ed an d s u b m i t t ed

New’ s earl y t erm in at i o n p ap ers , an d o n M arch 1 4

, 2 0 1 2

– ei g h t m o n t h s p ri o r t o t h e

s earch in q u es t i o n

– a ju d g e i s s u ed an o rd er ap p ro v i n g t h e earl y term i n at i o n o f New’ s

4p ro b at i o n wi t h o u t a co u rt ad j u d i cat i on o f g u i l t p u rs u an t to t h e Pro b at i o n fo r Fi rs t

Offen d ers Act , OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 0 , et s eq

.

Aft er t h e s earch

, New m o v ed to s u p p res s t h e ev i d en ce, an d t h e t ri al co u rt

g ran t ed h i s m o t i o n . Th e St at e ap p eal s

.

1

. Th e St at e fi rs t co n t en ds t h at t h e tri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g t h e m o t i o n to

s u p p res s b ecau s e l a w en fo rcem en t act ed reas o n ab l y u n der t h e “ t o t al i t y o f t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces ;” t h u s

, i t arg ues t h at t h e s earch w as l awfu l an d t h at OCGA § 1 7 -5 -3 0

req u i res s u p p res s io n o nl y d uri ng an u n l awfu l s earch

.

OCGA § 1 7-5 -3 0 (a) pro vi d es

, i n p ert in en t p art

, t h at : “ [a] d efen d an t ag g ri ev ed

b y an u n lawfu l s earch an d s ei zu re m ay m ov e th e co urt

. . . t o s u p p r e s s as ev i d en ce

an y t h i n g s o o b t ai n ed on t h e g ro u n d s t h a t : ( 1 ) ...[t ] h e s earch an d s ei zu re wi t h o u t a

warran t was i l leg al [.] ”

It is u n d i s pu t ed t h at New was n o t o n p ro bat i o n an d t h at th ere was no t a v al id

wai v er o f h i s Fo u rt h A m en d m en t ri g h t s at t h e t i m e o f t h e s earch

. Th u s

, i n t h e co n t ex t

o f t h i s en u m erat i on

, we m u s t ex am in e wh et h er t h e w arran t l es s s ea r c h es o f New’ s

p ro p ert y an d o f N ew h i m s el f, i n h i s cap aci ty as a fo rm er p ro b at i o n er wi t h fu l l Fo u rt h

Am en d m en t ri g h t s, were reas o n ab le an d l awfu l

.

5“ Ord i nari l y

, a search by a p ol i ce o ffi cer m us t b e s u p p o rt ed by a s earch warran t

,

co n sen t

, o r ex i g en t ci rcu m s t an ces .” (Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) Pr i n ce v. S t a t e

, 2 9 9 Ga. Ap p.

1 6 4

, 1 70 (3 ) (b ), n

. 7 (6 8 2 SE2 d 1 8 0 ) (2 00 9 ). 1 “ It i s wel l e s t a b l i sh ed th at s earch es

co n du ct ed ou t s i de t he ju di ci al p ro ces s

, wi t h ou t p ri or ap p ro val b y ju dg e o r m ag i s t rat e,

are p er se u nreas o n ab l e u n der t he Fo u rt h A m e n d m en t

– s u bject o n l y to a few

s p eci fi cal l y es t ab l i s h ed an d wel l -d el i n eat ed ex cep t i o ns .” (Ci t at io n s an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed .) Da vi s v. S t a t e , 2 6 2 Ga. 5 7 8 , 5 8 0 (1 ) (4 2 2 SE2 d 5 4 6 ) (1 9 9 2 ).

Th e St at e co n ced es t h at offi cers n ei t h er s o u g ht n o r recei v ed New’ s co n s en t to

s earch

, an d th at t h ere was n o pro b ab l e cau se t o ju st ify a s earch wa r r a n t

. Th e St at e

d o es n o t arg u e th at an y ex ig en t ci rcu m s t an ces ex is t ed t o ju s t i f y t h e s earch es

. See

Br o wn v. S ta t e

,

__ Ga. Ap p

.

_ _ , * 2 (1 ) (7 67 SE2 d 2 9 9 ) (Cas e No

. A1 4 A2 2 8 4, d eci d ed

Decem b er 1 6

, 2 0 1 4) (ex i gen ci es co u l d i n cl u d e p rev en t i n g i m m i n en t d es tru ct i o n o f

ev i d en ce, p u rs u i n g a fl eei n g s u s p ect

, o r h el p i n g p eo p l e wh o are i n j u red o r t h reat en ed

wi t h i m m i n e n t i nju ry ). A l s o

, New was n ot s earch ed in ci d en t t o a lawfu l arres t

. See

OCGA § 1 7 -5 -1

. See g en eral l y Li n d s ey v. S t a t e

, 28 2 Ga. Ap p

. 6 4 4

, 6 4 9 (6 3 9 SE2 d

1 In i t s rep l y b ri ef, t h e St at e co n ten d s th at o ffi cers h ad a “ g o o d -fai t h s u s p i ci o n

fo r t h e s earch b as ed u po n i n fo rm at i o n fro m a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer in Gwi n n et t

Co u n t y t h at [New] was i n p o s s es s i o n [o f] an d d i st ri b u t i n g d ru gs .” H o wev er, t h i s

s t an d ard ap p l i es t o pro b at i o n ers i n cert ai n co nt ex t s

, an d New was n o t o n p ro b at i o n

at t he t im e o f t he s earch . See Pr i n ce , s u p ra at 1 6 9-1 7 0 (3 ) (b ), n . 7

.

65 8 4 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (wh ere n o p ro b ab l e cau s e ex i s t ed t o b el i ev e d efen d an t h ad co m m i t t ed a

cri m e an d wh ere o ffi cer lack ed an y reas on t o bel i ev e a s earch was n e c e s s ary fo r

s afet y , a fu l l s earch o f d efen d an t ’ s p ers o n was an u n reas o n ab l e i n tru s i o n ).

Gi v en t hat New was n o t a p ro b at i o n er an d h ad n o t wai ved h i s F o u r t h

Am en d m en t ri g h t s, t h e s earch es an d s ei zu res were n o t v al i d

.

2

. Th e St at e n ex t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n g r a n t in g t h e m o t i o n to

s u p p res s b ecau s e l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers act ed i n g o od fai t h wh en co nd u ct i n g t h e

s earch es g i v en t h ei r reas o n ab l e b el i ef t h at N e w was o n p ro bat i o n an d su b ject t o a

Fo u rt h Am en d m en t wai v er o f ri g h t s ; t h us

, i t co n ten d s

, t h e s earch was reas o n ab l e an d

l eg al

.

Ho wev er, o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as fo u n d t h at Geo rg ia reco g n izes n o g o o d fai th

ex cep t i o n t o t h e ex cl u s i o n ary ru l e. In Ga r y v. S ta t e

, 2 6 2 G a. 5 7 3

, 5 7 5 (4 2 2 SE2 d 4 2 6 )

(1 9 9 2), o u r Su prem e Co u rt h el d t h at t h e g o o d fai t h ex cep ti o n t o t h e ex cl u s i o n ary ru l e

o f Un i t ed S t a t es v. Leo n

, 4 6 8 U. S. 8 9 7 (1 0 4 S.Ct

. 3 40 5

, 8 2 LE2 d 6 7 7) (1 9 8 4 ), d o es

n o t ap p l y i n Geo rg ia. G a ry i nv o l v e d t h e s e i zu re o f t an g ib l e ev i d en ce pu rs u an t t o a

s earch warran t t h at was l at er fo u n d t o l ack p ro b ab l e cau s e. G a r y , s u p ra at 5 7 3 -5 7 4,

5 7 7

. Th e Ga ry co u rt reas o n ed t h at t h e Leo n g oo d -fai t h ex cep t i o n s tem m ed fro m t h e

fed eral j u d i ci ary ’ s m o d i fi cat i on o f a ju d i ci al l y -creat ed ex cl u si on ary ru l e, b u t b ecau s e

7Geo rg i a’ s l eg i sl at ure h ad co d i fi ed a s peci fi c ex cl u s i o nary ru l e i n OCGA § 1 7

– 5

– 3 0,

“ i n fu s i o n o f t h e Leo n g o o d -fai t h ex cep t i o n i n to th e s t at u te w o u l d be t an tam o u n t t o

ju d i ci al l eg i sl at i o n .” (Fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed

. ) Ga r y

, s u pra at 5 7 5

.

Th e St at e arg u es t h at t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s lat er ru l i ng i n H a r vey v. S t a t e

, 2 6 6

Ga. 6 71 (4 6 9 SE2 d 1 76 ) (1 9 9 6), o p en s t h e d o or t o a d i fferen t res u lt

. Ha rvey i n v o l v ed

a s earch i n ci d en t to arres t wh ere t h e o ffi cer reas o n ab l y b el i ev ed h e was ex erci s i n g a

v al i d arres t warran t wh en

, i n fact

, t h e warran t h ad b een recal l ed

. Id

. at 6 71 -6 7 2

. Th e

Ha r vey co u rt reas o n ed t h at b ecau s e, at t he m o m en t th e arres t was m ad e, t h e o ffi cer

“ k n ew” t h ere was a v al id warran t

, pro b ab l e cau s e ex i s t ed t o s u p p o rt t he arres t

b ecau s e “ p ro b ab l e cau s e m u s t be m eas u red by cu rren t k no wl ed g e, i

. e., at t h e m o m en t

t h e arres t was m ad e an d n o t h i n d s i g h t

. ” (Ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id

. at

6 7 2 -6 7 3

. 2 Hav in g fo u n d t h at t h e arres t w as s up p o rt ed b y p ro b ab le cau s e, t h e Ha r vey

co u rt det erm i n ed t h at Harv ey ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p p res s h ad been co rrect l y d en i ed

. M o s t

s i gn i fi can t l y fo r o u r p urp o s e s

, t h e co u rt fo u n d t h at “ t h e ap p l i cab i l i t y o f t h e Leo n

‘ go o d fai t h ’ ex cep t i o n i s n ot i m p l i ca t ed b y th i s cas e.” (Em p h as i s s up p l i ed .) Id

. at 6 7 4.

2 W e n o t e th at th e rat i o nal e t h e Ha r vey 4

- 3 m ajo ri t y em p lo y ed i n o rd er t o fi n d

p ro b ab l e cau s e en g en d ered v eh em en t d i s s en t s . See i d . at 6 74 -6 78

.

8In t h e in st an t m at t er, h owev er, n o i n t erm ed i ary act i o n ex i s ts

– u nl i k e t h e arres t

i n Ha r vey

– t h at can be d eem ed v al i d o r su p p o rt ed b y p ro bab l e cau se t h an k s to

o ffi cers ’ reas o n ab l e b el i ef, an d wh i ch co u l d b e u s ed t o s i des t ep t h e d i rect ap p l i cat i o n

o f t h e g o o d fai t h ex cep t i o n t o t he s earch an d sei zu re. T h e on l y p o s s i bl e ju st i fi cat i o n

fo r t h e s earch an d s ei zu re in v o l v i n g New is t h e o ffi cers ’ g o od -fai t h b el i ef t h at h e was

o n p ro b at i o n an d s u b

j ect t o a v al i d Fo u rt h Am en d m en t wai v er, an d th at o p t i o n i s

fo recl o s ed b y G a ry

. 3

W e fi n d t wo m o re recen t Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt cas es m o re cl o s el y al i g n ed

wi t h t h e i n st an t act i o n i n t h at t h ey

, t o o

, l ack an in t erm ed i at e ev en t s u ch as an arres t

t h at was u l t i m at el y fo u nd to b e s u p p ort ed by pro b ab l e cau s e an d wh ich co ul d b e u s ed

as a s p ri ng b o ard t o ju s ti fy a l at er s earch an d s ei zu re. In Ha r p er v. S ta t e

, 2 83 Ga. 1 0 2,

1 0 6 -1 0 7 (2 ) (6 5 7 SE2 d 21 3 ) (2 0 0 8 ), wh ere an o ffi cer rel i ed o n a warran t t h at l at er

was fo u nd t o b e u ns u p po rt ed b y p ro bab l e cau s e an d a v al i d warran t w as req u i red to

s earch t h e d efen d an t ’ s d es k

, t h e ev id en ce s ei zed fro m t he d es k h ad t o b e s u p p res s ed

3 W e are n o t u ns y m

pat h et i c t o t h e St at e’ s as s ert i o n t h at t h e fact s h erei n are o f

s u ffi ci en t s i m i l ari t y t o th os e i n Ha r vey su ch t h at i t wo u l d b e l o g i cal t o ex t e n d t h e

ru l i n g i n H

a r vey i n t h i s co n tex t

. Ho wev er, g i v en t h e p ro n o u n cem en t i n G a r y ag ai n s t

ju d i ci al creat i o n of a g oo d fai t h ex cep t i o n t o t h e s t at u t ory ex cl u s i o n a r y r u l e in

Geo rg i a an d o u r Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s ap p aren t co n fl i ct i n Ha r v e y

, w e t h i nk an y ex t en s i o n

o f t h e h o l d i n g i n Ha r vey i s b es t l eft t o o u r Su prem e Co u rt i t s el f.

9b ecau s e Geo rg i a has n o g o o d fai t h ex cep t io n t o t he ex cl u s io n ary ru le. Acco rd Beck

v. S t a t e , 2 8 3 Ga. 3 5 2 , 3 5 2 -3 5 3 (1 ) (6 5 8 SE2 d 5 77 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (wh ere o ffi cers rel i ed o n

a s earch warran t i ss u ed b y a p ers o n wh o l ack ed au t h o ri t y t o d o so

, th e w arran t was

i n v al i d

, t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s erred in u p h o l d in g i t s v al i d i t y

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt erred

i n d en y i n g th e m o t i o n t o s u pp res s b ecau s e G e o r g ia reco g ni zes n o go o d fai th

ex cep t i o n t o t h e ex cl u s i o n ary ru l e).

M o re d i rect l y on p o i n t i n t h e co n t ex t o f warran t l es s s earch es i s S t a t e v. Ga l l u p

,

2 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 1 (5 1 2 SE2 d 6 6 ) (1 9 9 9 ), wh ere, aft er m o re th an 8 0 st orag e u n i t s were

v an dal i zed i n a s i n g l e n i g h t

, p o l i ce i ni t ial l y s earch ed t h e u n i t s wi th o u t a warran t. Id

.

at 3 2 1

. H o wev er, d uri n g th at s earch

, o n e o ffi cer o p en ed a refri g erat o r an d s aw wh at

ap p eared t o b e m ari

j u an a. An o t h er o ffi cer t hen o bt ai n ed a s earch warran t an d s ei zed

t h e m ari j u an a. Id

. at 3 2 2

. C i t i n g Ga ry

, we affi rm ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f

d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p p res s

, reas o n in g th at t h e o ffi cer ex ceed ed th e l awfu l s co p e

o f h i s in v es t i g at io n o f t h e b u rg l ary an d v an d al i s m

. Id . at 3 2 4 (1 ) (c). W e al s o fo u n d

t h at n o ex i g en t ci rcu m st an ces ex i s t ed t o ju s ti fy t h e warran t l es s o pen i n g o f t h e

refri g erat o r an d t hat “ [t ] h ere i s i n Geo rg i a n o ‘ g o o d fai t h ’ ex cep t i o n t o ou r st at u t o ry

ex cl u s i o n ary

ru le, OCGA § 1 7 -5 -3 0 .” Id . at 3 24 (2 ).

10Th e St at e al s o c i t e s t o s ev eral cas es i n v ol v i n g warran tl es s s earch es wh ere a

p ers o n o t h er t h an t h e d efen d an t co n s en t s t o th e search

, arg u i ng t h at an o ffi cer’ s

reas on ab l e b el i ef th at an u n au t h o ri zed p ers o n m ay co n s en t ren ders t h e s earch v al i d.

Ho wev er, b o t h cas es ci t ed b y t h e St at e, W a r ner v. S t a t e

, 2 9 9 G a. Ap p

. 5 6, 5 9 (1 ) (6 8 1

SE2 d 62 4 ) (2 0 09 ) (p aren t s co n s en t i n g t o search o f ad ul t s on ’ s b ed ro o m i n t h ei r

h o u s e) an d Fo rd v. S t a t e

, 2 1 4 Ga. Ap p

. 2 8 4

, 2 8 5 (1 ) (4 4 7 SE2 d 3 3 4 ) (1 9 9 4 ) (ad u l t

s i st er co n s en t i n g t o s earch o f her ad u l t b ro t h er’ s b ed ro om i n h er ap art m en t ), i n v o l v ed

s i tu at i o n s in wh i ch t he ap p el l at e co u rt u l t i m a t e l y d e t erm i n ed t h at t h ere was s o m e

ev i d en ce s up po rt i n g t h e l o wer co u rt ’ s fact ual fi n d i n g t h at t h e p ers o n g i v in g co n s en t

h ad au t ho ri t y t o d o s o

. Th os e ap p el l at e co u rt s were b o u n d b y t h e s t an dard o f rev i ew:

“ [w] h en rev i ewi n g a t ri al co u rt ’ s r u l i n g o n a m ot i o n to s u p pres s

, we ap p l y t h e ‘ an y

ev i d en ce’ s t an d ard

, wh i ch m ean s t h at we su s t ai n al l o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g s o f

fact th at are s u p po rt ed b y an y ev i d en ce.” (Ci t at i on s an d pu n ct u a t i o n o m i t t ed .)

W a r n er

, s u p ra at 5 8 (1 ). W e, t o o

, are bo u n d b y t h at s t an d ard

. In t h e in s t an t cas e, t h ere

i s no ev i d en ce t hat N ew was act u al l y o n p ro b at i o n o r h ad a val i d Fo u rt h Am en d m en t

wai v er i n p l ace at t h e t i m e o f t h e s earch an d s ei zu re.

11Ci t i n g Fo r d

, s u p ra at 2 86 -2 8 7 (3 ), 4 t he W ar n er co u rt p o s i ts i n co nd i t i o n al

l an g u ag e, t h at “ [a] warran t l es s s e a rch b as ed o n u n au t h o ri zed co n s en t co u ld

n o n et h el es s b e u p h el d i f t he l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer co n d uct i n g t h e s earch

r ea s o n a b l y (al b ei t erro n eo us l y ) b el i ev ed t h e co n sen t g i v en was v al i d .” (Fo o t n o t e

o m it t ed

, em

p h as i s s u p p l i e d

, an d em p h as i s in o ri g i n al ). W

ar n er

, s u p ra at 5 9 (1 ).

Ho wev er, t h i s p ro p o s i t i on arg u ab l y i s d i ct a i n b o t h F o r d an d W

a r ner as t h e i s s u e was

s q u arel y b efo re n ei t h er co u rt

. W e can no t b as e a d eci s i o n o n d i c t a i n t h e face o f

Ga r y ’ s m an d at e. See W

a l ker v. S t a t e

, 2 9 0 Ga. 6 96

, 70 0 (2 ) (7 2 3 SE2 d 89 4 ) (2 0 1 2 )

(wh ere o b i t er d i ct a was ci t ed i n c a s es t hat “ ei t h er fai l ed t o m en t i o n o r fai l ed to

an al y ze t h e rel ev an t l an gu ag e” o f a s t at u t e, t h e d ict a w as n o t b i nd i n g o n t h e co u rt in

a l at er cas e wh ere t h e i s s u e act ual l y was p res en t ed fo r d eci s i o n ).

4 Fo r d

, su p ra at 2 8 7 (3 ), al s o ci tes Da vi s

, s u p ra. Da vi s was i s su ed ju s t day s

aft er t h e Ga r

y d eci s i o n d ecl ari n g t h at G eo rg i a reco g n i zes n o g o o d fai t h ex cep t i o n to

t h e ex cl u s i on ary ru l e. D a vi s in v o l v ed a 1 0 -y ear-o l d ch i ld wh o co n sen t ed t o a s earch

o f h i s p aren t s’ h o m e. Id

. at 57 8

. Th e D avi s d eci s i o n w as l i m i t ed b y i t s o wn t erm s to

a s i n g l e i s s ue: “ wh et her, u n d er t h e p art i cu l ar fact s o f t h i s cas e, t h e co n sen t t o s earch

g i v en b y t h e ch i l d i n t h i s cas e was v al i d [,] ” an d t h e Da vi s co u rt d et erm i n ed t h at i t was

n o t

. Id

. at 5 7 9

, 5 8 1 (1 ). D a vi s ci t es G a r y i n a fo o t no t e wi t h o u t co m m en t o r co n t ex t

, b u t t h i s i ss u e was n o t s q u arel y befo re t h e Da vi s co u rt

, an d i t ren d ered n o d eci s i o n o n

t h e i n t erp l ay o f t h e g o o d -fai t h ex cl u s i o n wi th t h e ev i d en ce g l ean ed fro m t h e i l l eg al

s earch

. See i d

. at 5 80 (1 ), n

. (1 ) an d 5 8 3 (4 ). See al s o Fo r d

, s u p ra at 2 8 9 (3 )

(Bl ack b urn , J ., d i s s en ti n g).

123

. Fi n al l y

, t h e St at e arg u es t h at b ecau s e th e p r i m a r y p u rp o se o f t h e

ex cl u s i o n ary ru l e i s t o d et er p o l i ce m i s co n d u ct

, i t s p u rp o s es wo u l d n ot b e s erv ed in

t h e i n st an t cas e wh ere t h e o ffi cers i n t h e fi el d act ed i n g o od fai t h an d th e t ri al co u rt

erred i n s u pp res si n g t h e ev i d en ce.

Th i s arg u m en t h as so m e m eri t

, al t h o u g h l i k e m an y i s s u es

, th ere are t wo s i d es

t o t he s t ory

an d co m p et i ng i n t eres t s are at p l ay

.

I n d e e d

, “ [t ] h e p ri m ary reas o n fo r t h e ex cl u s io n ary ru l e i s t o d et er p o l i c e

m i s c o n d u c t

, wh et h er i t be n eg l i g en t o r i n t en ti o n al .” S t a t e v. S t r i ng er

, 2 5 8 Ga. 6 0 5,

6 0 6 (3 7 2 SE2 d 4 2 6 ) (1 98 8 ). As t h e St at e co n t en ds

, wh ere p o li ce h av e act ed i n g o o d

fai t h

, t h ere wo ul d b e n o d et erren t effect

. Ho wev er, as New p oi n t s o u t

, th ere m ay h av e

b een s om e n eg l i g en ce b y o ffi cers ch eck in g an d u pd at i n g h i s p ro bat i o n ary fi l e. Th e

reco rd s ho ws t h at a ju d g e h ad t erm i n at ed New’ s p ro b at i o n ei gh t mo n th s pri o r t o t h e

s earch in q u es t i o n ; h o wev er, h i s p ro b at i on reco rd s were n o t fu l l y up d at ed t o s h o w h i s

s t at u s u n ti l s ev en m o nt h s af t er t h e s earch at i ss u e. If t hi s i s t h e res u l t o f n eg l i g en ce,

l o g i cal l y

, ex cl u d i ng t h e ev id en ce a t i s s u e here co u l d h av e t h e req u i s i t e d et erren t

effect o n p ol i ce m i sco nd u ct

.

Reg ard l es s

, o u r d eci s io n h erei n is no t d i ct at ed b y p o l i cy

, b ut by OCGA § 1 7 -5

-

3 0 a n d b y Ga ry

. Geo rg i a reco g n izes n o go o d fai t h ex cep t i on

. Ho w ev er, o u r

13l eg i s lat u re m i g h t w i sh t o co n s i d er th e rat i o n al e i n L e o n

. T h ere, t h e Un it ed St at es

Su p rem e Co u rt fo u nd t h at a ju di ci al l y creat ed ex cep t i on t o t h e ex cl u s i o n ary ru l e was

p erm i t t ed g i v en t h at t h e Fo u rt h Am en d m en t has n o pro v i si o n “ ex p res s l y p recl u d i n g

t h e u s e o f ev i d en ce o bt ai n ed i n v i o l at i o n o f i t s co m m an d s

, an d an ex am i n at io n o f i t s

o ri g i n an d p u rp o s es m ak es cl ear t h at t h e us e o f fr u i t s o f a p as t un l awfu l s earch o r

s ei zu re wo rk s n o n ew Fo u rt h Am en d m en t wro n g.” (Ci tat i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed .) Leo n

, s u p ra at 9 0 6 (II) (A). Fu rt h er, th e Leo n co urt reco g ni zed th at i f t o o

s t ri ct l y ap p l i ed

, th e ex cl u si o nary ru le ex act s cert ai n s o ci al co st s, i n cl u d i n g an

i n t erferen ce wi t h t h e fu n ct i on s o f ju d g es an d ju ri es

.

An o b j e c t i o n ab le co l l at eral co ns eq u en ce o f t h i s i n t erferen ce wi t h th e

cri m i n al ju s t i ce s y s tem ’ s t ru t h -fi n di n g fu nct i o n i s t h at s o m e g u i l t y

d efen d an t s m ay go free o r recei v e red uced s en t e n c e s as a res ul t o f

fav o rab le p l ea b arg a i ns

. Part i cu larl y wh en l aw en fo rcem en t offi cers

h av e act ed i n o b

ject i v e g o o d fai th o r t h ei r t ran s g res s io n s h a v e b een

m i n o r, t h e m ag n i t ud e o f th e b en efi t co n ferred o n s uch g u i l ty d efen d an t s

o ffen d s b as i c co n cep t s o f t h e cri m i n al ju s t i ce s y s t em

. In di s cr i m i nat e

ap p l icat i o n o f t h e ex cl u s i o n ary ru le, t h erefo re, m ay wel l g en erat e

d i s res p ect fo r t h e l aw an d ad m i n i s t rat io n o f ju s t i ce.

Id . at 9 0 7 -9 0 8 (II) (A).

14Fro m a p h i lo s op h i cal s t an d p o i n t , t h i s rat i o n al e i s v al i d. Th e fact t h at i t i s n ot

accep t ed i n Geo rg i a, b ecau se (as o ut l in ed i n G a r y) we h av e a l eg i sl at iv el y creat e d

ex cl u s i o n ary ru l e rat h er t h an a ju di ci al ly creat ed ex cl u s i o n ary ru le, m ak es i t n o l es s

v a l i d

. Wi t h ou t a go o d fai t h ex cep t i o n i n t h i s co n t ex t

, w e es s en ti al ly d em an d

p erfect io n fro m p o l i ce, y et d o n o t req u i re i t o f p ro secu t ors

, d efen s e co u n s el

, o r ev en

ju d g es

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed

. An d

r ews

, P. J., a n d McFa d

d en

, J., co n cu r i n t he j u d

g men t

o n l y

.

15