Court Opinion

ID: 9560475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:49:38.198538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:56.303624
License: Public Domain

Ruffin, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent, as I believe the trial court should have granted Alex’s motion to suppress.
I agree that under the circumstances the agents are permitted to briefly detain Alex. However, it is required that such detention “be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the [agents’] suspicion in a short period of time. [Cits.]” Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 500 (103 SC 1319, 75 LE2d 229) (1983). The agents’ conduct in this case violated these requirements.
It is clear from the hearing transcript in this case that although the agents were generally suspicious that Alex may have been a drug courier, it was the “unusual bulge in his right front pocket” that peaked their suspicion. Agent Johnson asked Alex what was in his right front pocket. Agent Johnson was suspicious that Alex “was trying to conceal what was in his right front pocket.” Johnson stated he had no idea what was in the pocket except that it was a bulge. Alex refused to consent to Johnson’s request to “search [his] person[,]” announced that he had to catch his flight, and began to walk towards the gate. The agents detained Alex further in order to obtain a search warrant.
The investigatory stop lasted longer and was broader in scope than was necessary under the circumstances. Because the agents’ suspicions were focused on Alex’s right front pocket, their investigation should have been similarly focused. Thus, it was not necessary for the agents to search Alex’s entire person as requested by the agents. A request for Alex’s consent to search his right front pocket would have served their articulated purpose and would have been less intrusive. In like manner, the agents could have asked Alex to empty the contents of his right front pocket. The agents took neither of these ac*760tions, either of which would have confirmed or dispelled their suspicions instantly.
Decided March 15, 1996
William E. Frey, Steve M. Frey, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Albert B. Collier, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
While “[t]he subsequent post-arrest search of [Alex] did produce drugs . . . the existence of probable cause cannot be determined on the basis of hindsight.” (Emphasis omitted.) Polke v. State, 203 Ga. App. 306 (1), 309 (417 SE2d 22) (1992). Because the agents could not be sure that Alex possessed contraband, they should have, at least initially, employed these methods.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Blackburn join in this dissent.