Court Opinion

ID: 9846356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:39:47.927533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:28.440203
License: Public Domain

Barnes, Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I concur fully in the majority opinion, I write separately to stress the difference between this case, in which we are holding that the detention and questioning of a driver were authorized, and State v. Gibbons, 248 Ga. App. 859 (547 SE2d 679) (2001), and other cases, in which we held that the detention and questioning of drivers were not authorized. See, e.g., Berry v. State, 248 Ga. App. 874 (547 SE2d 664) (2001); State v. Sims, 248 Ga. App. 277 (546 SE2d 47) (2001).
In this case, although the deputy initially intended to stop Vaughn for following too closely, the deputy also had reason to suspect that Vaughn might be driving while under the influence and Vaughn’s continued detention was based on suspicion that arose from concern about the rental agreement he produced as proof of registration for the car he was driving. Because the rental agreement Vaughn produced was for a different rental car and authorized driver, the deputy had a reasonable basis for suspecting that Vaughn was engaged in criminal activity and thus detaining Vaughn while he investigated.
In the other cases, however, we found, based upon the facts of those cases, that the law enforcement officers had no reasonable basis for continuing the detention and questioning of the drivers once the investigation of the traffic stop was completed, or no investiga*541tion of the traffic stop was initiated. See Gibbons, 248 Ga. App. at 863. The outcome of these cases did not turn on the fact that the officers detained the drivers while they engaged in an investigation of possible criminal activity that differed from the reason for the traffic stop. The detentions were unlawful because the officers had no reasonable suspicion of the possible criminal activity before detaining the drivers.
Decided October 3, 2003.
Monica T Myles, Virginia W. Tinkler, for appellant.
David McDade, District Attorney, Christopher R. Johnson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Further, even though one could argue that the deputy had no reason to suspect that Vaughn was engaged in transporting drugs before he asked him to consent to the search of the car, no such suspicion is required. Burns v. State, 216 Ga. App. 178, 179-180 (454 SE2d 152) (1995). Further, “[s]o long as a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Burns, 216 Ga. App. at 179-180. Therefore, if the police questioning was consensual, then questions on an unrelated topic after the conclusion of a valid traffic stop are allowed. Simmons v. State, 223 Ga. App. 781, 782-783 (479 SE2d 123) (1996).
Here, as the deputy had a reasonable suspicion arising from the contradictions between the information on the rental agreement and the car Vaughn was driving, Vaughn’s continued detention was authorized.