Case Name: SHAW v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1984-09-26
Citations: 253 Ga. 382
Docket Number: 41047
Parties: SHAW v. THE STATE.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 253
Pages: 382–385

Head Matter:
41047.
SHAW v. THE STATE.
(320 SE2d 371)

Opinion:
Weltner, Justice.
Police officers entered the open business premises of Shaw's automobile repair shop during business hours, for the purpose of executing a search warrant relating to the front-half of a specified motor vehicle which was thought to be stolen. Under instructions of their superiors, they looked through the windshields of vehicles parked on Shaw's outdoor lot, and wrote down vehicle identification numbers, which were visible on the dashboard of each vehicle. No vehicle was entered; no door of any vehicle was opened; no physical object was seized from the vehicles. Two vehicles subsequently identified by computer check as stolen later were impounded.
Shaw's motion to suppress evidence relating to one of the vehicles later determined to be stolen was sustained by the trial court. The Court of Appeals reversed. We granted certiorari to determine whether, under these circumstances, recordation of vehicle identification numbers was authorized by the "plain view doctrine." State v. Shaw, 170 Ga. App. 404 (317 SE2d 298) (1984).
In Sewell v. State, 238 Ga. 495 (2) (233 SE2d 187) (1977), this Court approved the seizure, without a warrant, of pornographic material which "was displayed in a glass case in plain view for everyone who walked in to see." See also Robinson v. State, 143 Ga. App. 37, 40 (5) (237 SE2d 436) (1977). We are unable to perceive any rational distinction between observation through the glass of a display case, as in Sewell, supra, and observation through the glass of a windshield, as in this case. "There is no legitimate expectation of privacy [cits.] shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers. In short, the conduct that enabled [the officers] to observe the interior of [the vehicles] was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." Texas v. Brown, — U. S. — (103 SC 1535, 1542; 75 LE2d 502) (1983). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.
Decided September 26, 1984
Rehearing denied October 16, 1984.
William Ralph Hill, Jr., for appellant.
David L. Lomenick, Jr., District Attorney, J. Robert Sparks, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.