Criminal defense lawyer successful in reversing drug conviction based on inadequate consent to search
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial court's decision to suppress cocaine found in a vehicle for the lack of a proper consent to search when the arresting officer could only say that driver “pretty much” gave consent.
In State v. Holloway, two officers were dispatched to a Dekalb County residence with the suspicion that the occupants were selling drugs. When the officers arrived, they saw a man, woman, and their children on the front porch. The officers explained why they were there, and the woman freely gave consent for the officers to search her home.
Upon finding no evidence, the officers noticed a vehicle in the driveway. The officers then asked the man and woman for consent to search the vehicle. The man stated that the woman was the primary driver, but that the vehicle was registered in his name. The officer who conducted the search testified that the woman “pretty much” consented to the search. In addition, the officer stated that she “pretty much advised that she did see a bag containing a white substance in the vehicle.” The man never gave consent for a search. The officer then used a K-9 dog from his patrol car to conduct a free air search. This search resulted in the officers finding a bag of suspected cocaine in the glove compartment. Ultimately, the man was arrested for trafficking cocaine and possession with intent to distribute.
The man challenged the legality of the search by arguing that the consent given by the woman was involuntary. The trial court found that the officer’s testimony was vague and disingenuous when he used the words “pretty much” during several parts of his testimony. After hearing the officer and observing his demeanor, the trial court suppressed the cocaine. The state argued that the officer’s language was simply a “verbal tic.” The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court was the trier of fact which determines the credibility of a witness, and it is free to reject the testimony of a witness. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals wrote that it will not disturb the trial court’s ruling on the credibility of a witness unless there is evidence demanding a different finding. Since there was no evidence that suggested a different result, the trial court’s ruling was affirmed and the cocaine was suppressed.
This decision may help to prevent police officers from searching vehicles unless owners give clear and unambiguous consent to search. Our criminal defense lawyers represent people charged in situations where the legality of a search conducted by police officers is disputed. This case will help us defend people whose constitutional rights have been violated by searches without warrants, probable cause or proper consent.
