Court Opinion

ID: 9599120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:14:30.174098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:44.031574
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring in the reversal of the judgment.
I concur fully in Divisions 2, 3, and 4 of the majority opinion but not with the application of controlling principles in Division 1. The reversal of the judgment is also required because of the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress, which Hinson justifiably enumerates as error.
“Although we construe the evidence most favorably to upholding the trial court’s findings and judgment, this court’s responsibility in reviewing the trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress is to ensure that there was a substantial basis for the decision.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Raulerson v. State, 223 Ga. App. 556, 557 (2) (479 SE2d 386) (1996).
In addition to the facts outlined in the majority opinion, others are relevant. William Bell, the “concerned citizen,” was not known to Officer Byers. The only suggestion that Hinson might have access to a weapon was Bell’s saying that the person was “known to carry a weapon.” When Mrs. Bell got out of the front passenger side of the car and headed into the house, she did not speak to the officer or her husband, who were standing in the yard. Hinson began to back out of the neighbor’s driveway, but the officer activated the blue light on his marked patrol car and positioned the patrol car to prevent Hinson’s *845leaving. He wanted to investigate “the extent [and] nature ... of the two being together.” He ordered Hinson out of the car at gunpoint and locked him in the back of the patrol car. According to the officer, Hinson was cooperative, not abusive or offensive towards the officer, and had committed no known offense. No one else was in Hinson’s car.
At that point, before asking Hinson or Kelly Bell any questions, the officer searched those areas of the passenger compartment of Hinson’s car where weapons might be hidden, including the glove compartment and the area under the front seats. The officer testified that he conducted this search for his own safety. Under the passenger seat, the officer found a bag containing cocaine and marijuana, and inside the glove compartment he found a .45 caliber pistol. He then went further and searched the trunk, where he found a shotgun.
The trial court found the officer had “probable cause” to stop and detain Hinson and “probable cause” to search the car because of Bell’s reported statement that Hinson was known to carry a weapon. It appears the trial court merely used the wrong terms and in fact agreed with the State’s arguments that (1) the officer had “articu-lable suspicion” to perform a brief investigative stop; and (2) the limited search of the vehicle for weapons was justified by concern for the officer’s safety, pursuant to Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (103 SC 3469, 77 LE2d 1201) (1983). Assuming a brief investigative stop was warranted, see Streicher v. State, 213 Ga. App. 670, 672 (445 SE2d 815) (1994), the subsequent non-warrant search was unreasonable under the circumstances.
In Michigan v. Long, supra, 463 U. S. at 1035-1036, officers detained Long for an investigation after he ran his car into a ditch. Long exited the car and met officers at its rear, but he did not immediately respond to questions and appeared to be “under the influence of something.” When Long turned and began walking toward the open car door, officers saw a large hunting knife on its floorboard. They stopped Long and conducted an unfruitful “pat-down” search of his person for weapons. One officer then shined a light into the car and, observing something protruding from under the armrest, lifted the armrest and found marijuana.
The court ruled the limited search justified by the officers’ concern that Long might have access to a weapon in the car and held “the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” Id. at 1049.
*846Bentley v. State, 214 Ga. App. 580, 582-583 (3) (448 SE2d 479) (1994), held police were justified in searching a passenger compartment after drug suspects stated they had weapons in their car. In Newby v. State, 178 Ga. App. 891, 892 (2) (345 SE2d 102) (1986), a protective search for weapons was justified when police stopped suspects who had reportedly committed armed robbery a few minutes earlier and saw the butt of a firearm protruding from under the front seat of the suspects’ car. Holbrook v. State, 177 Ga. App. 318, 319-321 (1) (339 SE2d 346) (1985), held a protective sweep of a vehicle before it was returned to a detained suspect was justified by facts showing that defendant was on probation, his father had just been stopped in possession of a weapon, his brother was a prison escapee, the three men were known to the FBI as frequent drug traffickers, and the police had information that a bank robbery might be in the offing. Compare State v. Jarrells, 207 Ga. App. 192, 193-194 (4) (427 SE2d 568) (1993), a case remanded for the trial court to determine whether, as an incident to detention, a vehicle search for weapons was justified by reasonable articulable belief of the presence of a weapon of which an occupant might gain immediate control. A weapon search is not justified in law merely by the statement of the officer that caution for safety is the reason for the search; objective facts must support the fear of danger created by the possibility that the suspect will gain control of a weapon if the police do not secure it first.
As the Supreme Court stated in Michigan v. Long, supra, the police may not conduct such searches every time they conduct an investigative stop. 463 U. S. at 1049, n. 14. A protective sweep of a vehicle’s passenger compartment is merely an extension of the investigative stop, the scope of which “is determined in each case by balancing the extent of the intrusion against the immediacy and importance of the interest in crime prevention or law enforcement which is sought to be advanced.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Brown, 178 Ga. App. 307, 308 (1) (342 SE2d 779) (1986). The search, like the investigative stop, must be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Tarwid v. State, 184 Ga. App. 853, 855 (363 SE2d 63) (1987). The “weapons search” of Hinson’s car at the point conducted was not justified by the circumstances.
First, the only information which could have justified the search of Hinson’s vehicle was Bell’s reported statement that Hinson was “known to carry a weapon.” Nothing in the record shows how Bell obtained this information or whether the officer and Bell even talked about it, and nothing in Bell’s reported statement indicated Hinson was carrying a weapon that night. See Oboh v. State, 217 Ga. App. 553, 555-556 (458 SE2d 177) (1995) (stop not justified by bank tellers’ *847statements that defendant was “acting very suspicious”). The credibility of Bell’s allegations was jeopardized by the event as it unfolded before the officer: Bell’s “kidnapped” wife was brought home within an hour of the officer’s dispatch to the residence, left the car with no apparent sign that she and Hinson had been fighting or arguing, and simply walked in the front door of her house without approaching her husband or the police officer. The officer knew that Mrs. Bell and Hinson were acquaintances. The record does not show that the officer asked Hinson if he was armed, or conducted a pat-down search of Hinson’s person, or saw any weapons in Hinson’s car prior to the search, or made any inquiry of Hinson about who he was or why he was with Mrs. Bell. Compare Michigan v. Long, supra; Bentley, supra.
In addition, at the time of the search Hinson was locked in the patrol car and presented no danger to the officer. As the State notes, an officer may be justified in searching a vehicle for weapons before releasing a suspect he has not arrested. See Holbrook, supra. But Officer Byers conducted the search before he ever determined he would release Hinson or had reason to believe Hinson would use a weapon if released back to his car and given the liberty to leave. When asked why he searched the Hinson vehicle before questioning Kelly Bell, the officer explained: “I was going to investigate it and since Mr. Hinson’s vehicle was identified as being his vehicle, presumably with him in it, and I had the suspect of the alleged kidnapping there,... it wouldn’t have been a good idea for me to let him go having a suspect for an alleged kidnapping there when I could have completed the case right there by making that arrest, if, in fact, it was a kidnapping. And also Mrs. Bell [was not going] anywhere else. So I could have questioned her later on as to the facts of the case, which I did in fact do.” At the time of the search the officer did not know whether Hinson would be formally arrested or allowed to reenter his car.
An investigative stop must be “limited in time to that minimally necessary to investigate the allegation invoking suspicion, and limited in scope to identification and limited questioning reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the initiation of the momentary stop.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 216 Ga. App. 453, 454 (2) (454 SE2d 635) (1995). Although the officer had no reasonable grounds to detain Hinson except to investigate whether there was a kidnapping, he searched the Hinson vehicle before making any effort to speak to the alleged victim. As recited above, the officer’s own testimony shows he conducted this search before making any attempt to investigate whether Hinson had committed a crime against Kelly Bell.
Thus, the search was not justified by “a reasonable belief based *848on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted]’ the officer in believing that [Hinson was] dangerous and . . . [might] gain immediate control of weapons.” Michigan v. Long, supra, 463 U. S. at 1049. The circumstances in this case, unlike those in Michigan v. Long, supra, and the cases cited above, were not shown to be necessary for the officer’s safety and thus did not give him “specific and articulable facts” justifying a search of the vehicle for weapons. Id. The trial court was required by law to grant Hinson’s motion to suppress.
Decided November 7, 1997
Reconsiderations denied December 2, 1997 and December 16, 1997
Sharon D. Smith-Knox, for appellant.
Fitzgerald Hinson, pro se.
J. Tom Morgan, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, Benjamin M. First, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Judge Ruffin joins in this concurrence.