“2006)—Baker v. State, 277 Ga. App. 520, 627 S.E.2d 145.
The police received a tip from a confidential informant (he was not shown to be reliable) that a man in a black or green jeep or truck at a particular Wendy’s would be involved in a drug deal “in the near future.” The police went to the scene and observed the defendant, Baker, in a black pickup truck. He drove around a nearby gas station a couple times; then drove to another restaurant and pulled alongside another pickup truck. Baker then drove away. The police pulled him over and asked for his license which was determined to be suspended. The court of appeals held that there was no basis for the stop of Baker and the evidence that was thereafter acquired (through a consent search) was tainted by the illegal stop. After arresting Baker, the police asked if he had any more drugs at his house and he acknowledged that he might have some marijuana.” “The police went to the house and confronted the second defendant, Ms. Drescher. She was asked for consent to search her house and her purse. She was arrested based on drugs found in the house and in her purse. The court of appeals held that this evidence, too, must be suppressed, based on the illegal detention of Baker: “Drescher’s consent was the product of the illegal detention [of Baker], and the taint of the unreasonable stop was not sufficiently attenuated.”
“2004)—State v. Davenport, 268 Ga. App. 704, 603 S.E.2d 324.
The police arrested a man who promptly agreed to set up another person. The arrestee made a call to arrange a delivery and told the police that the supplier would be driving a white car and would come from a certain apartment. The police did not know to whom the arrestee made the call. The police were at the designated apartment and did not see anybody actually leave that apartment, but saw two people come from around the corner and get into a white car. That car was stopped and the driver was seen kicking a bag under the car. The bag contained cocaine. The trial court suppressed the evidence and the court of appeals affirmed. First, the information from the arrestee amounted to a tip, not informant information, because the arrestee was not previously known to the police and had provided no reliable information in the past. Second, the information provided to the police (the location of the source’s apartment and “the color of the car) were innocent details which did not support the stop. Third, the stop of the vehicle was not supported by articulable suspicion.”
Contact a paulding county criminal defense lawyer today.