Court Opinion

ID: 9560332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:47:55.426936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:51.161740
License: Public Domain

Ruffin, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority correctly sets forth the principles under which we are required to review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress. “On numerous occasions the appellate courts of this state have invoked these . . . principles to affirm trial court rulings that upheld the validity of seizures. These same principles of law apply equally to I trial court rulings that are in favor of the defendant and their application to this trial court’s order would demand that the court’s order be affirmed.” Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53, 54 (1) (440 SE2d 646) (1994). Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
While I agree with the majority that the agents were entitled to stop Crisanti and his companions in order to determine the nature of the briefcase, I do not agree that the time and scope of their investigative detention was sufficiently limited. Because the record shows that there was at least some evidence to support the trial court’s judgment, it was not clearly erroneous.
In addition to the facts set forth in the majority’s opinion, I believe it is essential to point out that the record shows, without contradiction, that the agents admitted they had no evidence that Crisanti had broken any laws when they took him to the police department to further search for the remote control. Furthermore, although the record shows that Rivera was carrying the briefcase, at no time did anyone ask him if he also had the remote control. Likewise, although bomb dogs were present, the officers did not conduct a canine sniff of the briefcase or other luggage to confirm or dispel their suspicion that the briefcase contained explosives. Finally, Agent Webster, who was in charge of the investigation, acknowledged that from the time he first secured the briefcase on the airport tarmac, to the time it was *713opened at the police department, no efforts were made to confirm his suspicion that it might explode or deliver a shock.
In McSweeney v. State, 183 Ga. App. 1, 2 (1) (358 SE2d 465) (1987), we recognized that the dangers associated with air piracy justify the need for stringent security measures at airports. Such concerns justify, for example, airport security searches of all passengers and their luggage based on the need to protect an aircraft and its passengers. Id. at 3. However, the scope of an airport search is not unlimited and like other searches and seizures must be carefully tailored to its initial justification. See generally Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491 (103 SC 1319, 75 LE2d 229) (1983). We have thus held that “in cases involving the detention of luggage, a two-fold inquiry is in order: (1) Did the police have reasonable cause to detain the luggage? [and] (2) Was the detention so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable upon reasonable cause? [Cit.]” State v. Foster, 209 Ga. App. 143, 146 (433 SE2d 109) (1993). To be minimally intrusive, such a detention, whether of a passenger or his luggage “must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer’s suspicion in a short period of time. [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Royer, supra at 500.
I agree with the majority and the State that the officers’ initial seizure of Crisanti and his carry-on bag was based on a reasonable, articulable suspicion that his companion was carrying a briefcase that might contain explosives and that the briefcase could be detonated by a remote control Crisanti may have possessed. However, while it is likely that the officers’ suspicions could have been confirmed or dispelled on the tarmac, without further detaining Crisanti, they instead chose to take him to the police department for a further search. Although the officers justified their search based on their suspicions that the briefcase could deliver a shock or that it contained explosives, they did nothing from the time they first secured the briefcase on the airport tarmac, to the time it was opened at the police department, to dispel their suspicions even though bomb dogs were present and x-ray devices at airport security stops were presumably available. See id. at 505-506. Although the majority states that the bomb dogs would have been of no use, the record clearly shows that the agents were suspicious that the briefcase contained explosives. The bomb dogs could have helped dispel this suspicion. Likewise, even though the officers were suspicious that either Crisanti or one of his companions possessed the remote control, they failed to ask Rivera, who possessed the briefcase, whether he also possessed the remote control. In light of the officers’ failure to take even obvious and available measures to dispel their suspicions, I also find questionable their refusal *714to allow Crisanti to open the briefcase when he repeatedly offered to do so. If the agents were concerned that the briefcase could emit a shock, then allowing Crisanti to open it would have allowed them to confirm or dispel this suspicion without endangering their safety. In short, while the officers could have quelled their suspicions concerning the briefcase and the remote control without further delaying Crisanti, they chose instead to detain him for further investigation at the police department. “[T]he detention to which he was then subjected was a more serious intrusion on his personal liberty than is allowable on mere suspicion of criminal activity.” Id. at 502. “What had begun as a [permissible] inquiry in a public place had escalated into an investigatory procedure in a police [station], where the police, unsatisfied with previous explanations, sought to confirm their suspicions. The officers had . . . seized [Crisanti’s] luggage. [Crisanti] was never informed that he was free to board his plane if he so chose, and he reasonably believed that he was being detained. . . . As a practical matter, [Crisanti] was under arrest.” Id. at 503. It is thus clear that the suppressed evidence was not obtained during a lawful investigative search.
I also find that because the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Crisanti, his subsequent consent to search the bag was tainted. All the officers knew at the time of Crisanti’s arrest was that his companion possessed a briefcase containing an electronic device which had a remote control and that “it could be a danger.” The officers, unsatisfied with Crisanti’s explanation that the briefcase was a security device, sought to further detain him and his baggage. Because I agree with the trial court that these facts did not provide probable cause to arrest Crisanti, and further find that his consent to search the bag was tainted by the illegality and was ineffective to justify the search, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. See id. at 507-508.
Furthermore, although the majority finds the trial court ignored undisputed testimony that Crisanti consented to a search while on the tarmac, the record does not support this finding, and in any event, even if Crisanti did consent at that time, the agents failed to act upon it in an expeditious manner.
The evidence showed that Agent Roey was present and heard the conversation between Agent Stevens and Crisanti. From her testimony on direct examination, it is apparent that Agent Roey recalled the details of the conversation, including the fact that Crisanti consented to a search of his bag after they reached police headquarters. Yet, when asked on cross-examination whether Agent Stevens asked Crisanti for consent to search his bag while on the tarmac, Agent Roey testified that she could not “remember exactly what he asked him out on the [tarmac].” “Credibility of witnesses and the weight to *715be given their testimony is a decision-making power that lies solely with the trier of fact. The trier of fact is not obligated to believe a witness even if the testimony is uncontradicted and may accept or reject any portion of the testimony. [Cit.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Tate, supra at 56 (3).
The trial court heard both Agent Roey’s and Agent Stevens’ testimony and had the opportunity to observe their demeanor. The trial court must have concluded that because Agent Roey heard and recalled, with detail, the conversation on the tarmac, yet did not remember anything regarding consent being mentioned, that no such consent was given at that time. Such a conclusion is consistent with the trial court’s final order granting the motion and is also “consistent with the way reviewing courts interpret judicial orders.” Id. at 57. Moreover, even if Agent Stevens’ testimony concerning consent was uncontradicted, the trial court was authorized to reject it. See id.
Furthermore, it was the State’s burden to show that any consent was freely and voluntarily given under the surrounding circumstances. Mallarino v. State, 190 Ga. App. 398, 400, 402 (2) (379 SE2d 210) (1989). The circumstances of this case provided at least some evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that any consent allegedly given on the tarmac was coerced. The evidence is undisputed that Crisanti was confronted by a force of approximately 14 law enforcement officers accompanied by bomb dogs. Although the agents interrogating Crisanti did not use their weapons, one of the agents had pointed a gun at his companion. There was no evidence that Crisanti was advised of his relevant constitutional rights including his right to refuse to consent. Although no single factor is controlling, this is some evidence that the psychological impact of the circumstances surrounding the detention, accompanied by the failure to advise him of his rights, could have led Crisanti to believe that he had no choice but to consent. See id.; Love v. State, 144 Ga. App. 728 (2) (b) (242 SE2d 278) (1978), overruled on other grounds, Parker v. State, 161 Ga. App. 37 (288 SE2d 852) (1982). See also LaFave, Search & Seizure (2d ed. 1987), Vol. 3, § 8.2 (b).
I do not find under these circumstances that the trial court’s order was clearly erroneous. Id.
Finally, the majority believes that the officers’ actions in removing Crisanti from the tarmac to police headquarters were justified for safety reasons and because such actions minimized the intrusiveness of the search. However, as the majority recognizes, the officers moved Crisanti to the police headquarters to get out of the cold and away from the prying eyes of the public. With all due respect, I do not see how getting out of the cold is related to safety. Neither do I believe that the agents’ search of Crisanti’s carry-on bag necessitated his removal to police headquarters. Crisanti had already been stopped by a *716large number of officers accompanied by bomb dogs, questioned and patted down, all in full view of the public. If indeed Crisanti consented to a search of his small carry-on bag while on the tarmac, the search could have been conducted on the spot without any more of a public intrusion on his personal liberty than had already taken place. Moreover, as the Supreme Court noted in Royer, if the on-the-spot “search proved negative, [Crisanti] would have been free to go much earlier and with less likelihood of missing his flight, which in itself can be a very serious matter in a variety of circumstances.” Royer, supra at 505. A positive result, on the other hand, “would have resulted in his justifiable arrest on probable cause.” Id. at 506.
Decided March 15, 1996.
Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Albert B. Collier, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.
Melnick, Moore & Elliott, Larry M. Melnick, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Pope, Judge Blackburn and Judge Smith join in this dissent.