Court Opinion

ID: 9620095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:38:17.569462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:54.849107
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In this case, the shoes were not seized for a physical comparison, but only the officer’s visual observations were admitted. There was no written motion to suppress filed prior to trial which is mandatory to suppress physical evidence. Peppers v. State, 144 Ga. App. 662 (242 SE2d 330) (1978); Watson v. State, 147 Ga. App. 847, 860 (250 SE2d 540) (1978). Even if the initial arrest is invalid, it is not error to fail to suppress those things to which a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. handwriting, voice, facial characteristics). We believe *14that observations as to the type of shoes a person was wearing would fall into this category. Reeves v. State, 139 Ga. App. 214 (228 SE2d 201) (1976). Moreover, as nothing has been seized pursuant to an illegal arrest, we failed to see how visual observations of a person’s clothing, etc. could not be admitted at a trial for another offense. In Raif v. State, 109 Ga. App. 354 (136 SE2d 169) (1964), the arrest was illegal and the defeñdants were required to surrender their clothing at the jail and thus were either directly or indirectly required to furnish evidence. In our case, the officer testified only as to what he observed.

Motion for rehearing denied.