Court Opinion

ID: 9587299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:20:49.40048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:12.700652
License: Public Domain

RUFFIN, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I agree with the result reached, I am unable to agree with the analysis employed. I do not think law enforcement officers should be given carte blanche authority to “secure” all weapons during a routine traffic stop. Where, as here, the suspect was outside of the car, beyond the reach of the weapon, and the arresting officer testified that he did not feel threatened by the suspect, I see no need to permit the officer to enter the car to retrieve the gun.
Nonetheless, I believe the trial court properly denied Megesi’s motion to suppress. When the law enforcement officer approached the car, he smelled marijuana which, at a bare minimum, gave him reasonable suspicion to question Megesi about the presence of drugs.4 And although the officer reached into the car to retrieve the gun, he did not seize the marijuana cigarette at that point. Rather, after observing the contraband, he asked Megesi “if there were any drugs inside the vehicle.” In response, Megesi indicated there were no drugs in the car, and he invited the officer to search the car. It was only then that the officer retrieved the marijuana cigarette from the car. By issuing the invitation to search his car, Megesi consented to the officer’s conduct.5 Since I see this as clearly a consent case, I see no need to expand Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the manner advocated by the majority.

 See State v. Charles, 264 Ga. App. 874, 876 (2) (592 SE2d 518) (2003) (“Georgia appellate courts have clearly held that the odor of marijuana emanating from a car, in and of itself, provides a law enforcement officer with a reasonable suspicion that marijuana is present.”).

 See Pierce v. State, 274 Ga. App. 670, 671 (1) (618 SE2d 700) (2005); Parker v. State, 234 Ga. App. 26 (1) (506 SE2d 191) (1998) (“The arresting officer’s testimony that Parker invited him to search the car is sufficient to support a finding of consent.”).