Georgia criminal lawyer wins drug suppression after court rules an “ambiguous comment” does not give rise to probable cause
The Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that an officer lacked probable cause to make a search incident to arrest, since the arrest was supported entirely by a third party’s statement that the suspect placed something in his pocket. The Court reasoned that there must generally be some evidence directly linking the suspect to the suspected criminal activity to support probable cause.
In Lawrence v. State, the defendant, Jack Lawrence was convicted of cocaine possession after a traffic stop. On the night of his arrest, an officer saw a vehicle swerving before it came to a stop in the middle of a road outside of a club known for drug activity. A man then walked from the club to the vehicle and got inside. The car then swerved off the road. The officer conducted a traffic stop and recognized the driver as Lawrence’s wife due to Lawrence’s history of drug offenses. The wife denied picking anyone up from the club but then admitted that she had. The officer then asked if there were any drugs in the vehicle and she replied that she didn’t think so. The officer stated that if he found any drugs in the vehicle the wife and Lawrence would probably go to jail. The wife responded “[W]ell, Jack put something in his pocket.” Not knowing the contents of Lawrence’s pocket, the officer instructed Lawrence to exit the vehicle and empty his pockets. Lawrence then pulled out a bag of cocaine which resulted in his arrest and eventual conviction.
Upon Lawrence’s appeal, the state argued that the search of the pocket was incident to Lawrence’s arrest and therefore valid. However, for such a search to be valid, the arrest must be supported by probable cause. Under the law, probable cause is described as being less than a certainty but more than a mere suspicion. It is a relatively low threshold to meet and may even exist given the totality of the circumstances. That is to say a combination of suspicious circumstances may give rise to probable cause. However, for the totality of the circumstances to give rise to probable cause, there generally needs to be some evidence which directly links the suspect to the suspected criminal activity. For instance, the smell of contraband, extreme nervousness, furtive movements or a reliable tip from an informant may be some circumstances that, when combined with others, can give rise to probable cause.
The court reasoned that the circumstances in this case do not show probable cause, since the officer’s suspicions arose entirely from an ambiguous comment made by his wife. As such, the court reversed Lawrence’s conviction finding that the contraband should have been suppressed by the trial court.
Our criminal defense lawyers have also won many drug cases due to officers performing searches after a suspect was illegally arrested. In our experience, there is almost always an issue of whether a search was properly conducted any time drugs are discovered in a vehicle or on a person. To show that there was no probable cause, and thus no grounds to arrest and/or search, a criminal defense attorney will conduct an independent investigation including obtaining police video and recordings, reviewing witness and police statements, and assessing any technology that may have been used by law enforcement such as laser, radar, taps or dog sniffs.
Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon, Madison and Savannah. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.
