Court Opinion

ID: 9589817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:49:00.659303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:52.349635
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with Division II of the court’s opinion and the reversal of the judgment below. However, I do not agree with Division I of the court’s opinion, and for that reason *467I write this concurring opinion.
First, this record shows that there was more than adequate "probable cause” for the arrest, the search, and the seizure. Therefore, solely on the basis of the facts presented, there is no valid search and seizure claim in this case. The habeas judge’s findings of fact asserted this conclusion.
Second, since the judgment below is reversed and a new trial ordered, a search and seizure claim, whether meritorious or not, can still be asserted under Georgia’s suppression statute, Code Ann. § 27-313.
In this case I think the statutory motion to suppress was purposely abandoned because of its clear lack of any merit.
The evidence obtained and used by the state in this criminal trial was not the fruit of an illegal search and seizure. Therefore, treatment by the court of the issue of waiver of a federal constitutional right is superfluous and, in my view, somewhat gratuitous.