Court Opinion

ID: 9931622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 16:05:03.852177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:43.004431
License: Public Domain

FOURTH DIVISION
                             DILLARD, P. J.,
                       MERCIER, C. J., and MARKLE. J.

                    NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
                    physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
                    days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
                               https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

                                                                    February 9, 2024

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
 A22A0422. THE STATE v. MIDDLETON.

      DILLARD, Presiding Judge.

      In State v. Middleton,1 the State appealed the trial court’s grant of Patrick

Middleton’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. In doing so,

the State argued the court erred in ruling that because Officer Amanda Graw of the

Kingsland Police Department—a municipal law enforcement officer—initiated the

traffic stop of Middleton’s vehicle outside the municipality’s boundaries, she had no

jurisdiction and thus was not engaged in the lawful discharge of her official duties at

the time of the search and subsequent arrest. We agreed with the State, and reversed

the grant of Middleton’s motion to suppress, concluding that Officer Graw had

      1
          363 Ga. App. 851 (872 SE2d 920) (2022).
jurisdiction because she had been adequately deputized by the Camden County

Sheriff’s Office several years prior to the subject traffic stop. We further determined

the trial court’s finding that the State failed to introduce evidence as to the scope or

content of this deputization was belied by Officer Graw’s uncontradicted testimony

that she was, in fact, authorized to make arrests in Camden County.

      Then, in Middleton v. State,2 the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated our

opinion, explaining that the trial court’s order was unclear as to whether it made a

factual finding regarding the scope of Officer Graw’s deputization (which would be

entitled to deference) or a legal ruling on the effect and duration of a general

deputization (which would be subject to de novo review).3 As a result, our Supreme

Court directed us to vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case with direction,

seeking clarification as to whether the court’s ruling that Officer Graw did not have

legal authority to stop and search Middleton was based on the factual finding that she

      2
          316 Ga. 808 (890 SE2d 713) (2023).
      3
        See Nelson v. State, 312 Ga. 375, 377 (863 SE2d 61) (2021) (“In reviewing a
trial court’s ruling on a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, the trial court’s
decision with regard to questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless
clearly erroneous; . . . [t]he trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo,
however.”).
                                           2
had been deputized for particular cases only. Accordingly, we vacate our prior

opinion, adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own, vacate the trial court’s

order, and remand this case for the court to clarify its order as directed.

      Judgment vacated and remanded. Mercier, C. J., and Markle, J., concur.

                                           3